Tommie, a six-year-old child, was seriously injured when he stuck a fork into an electrical outlet at a restaurant. His parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets even though no law required the restaurant to do so. Whether the restaurant is liable will be dependent upon whether

Question

Business

Norah

24 March, 06:00

Tommie, a six-year-old child, was seriously injured when he stuck a fork into an electrical outlet at a restaurant. His parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets even though no law required the restaurant to do so. Whether the restaurant is liable will be dependent upon whether

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Hillary Gould · Answer 1

The answer is: the accident was reasonably foreseeable.

Explanation:

The defendant (in this case the restaurant being sued) can be considered liable only if the plaintiff (Tommie's family) can prove that they were negligent. They must also prove that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Usually in order to prove that the defendant was negligent and is responsible for the injuries, foreseeability must be determined. In other words, was it reasonably foreseeable that the restaurant should have known that by not covering the electrical outlet someone could get hurt?