In March 2010, a New Jersey man's face was badly burned after leaning over his sizzling hot plate of fajitas from Applebee's restaurant to pray. He sued Applebee's for his injuries. The appeals court

determined that the restaurant was not responsible because it has no need to warn patrons " ... against a danger that is open and obvious." The ruling is based on what theory?

a. caveat emptor.

b. assumption of the risk.

c. no privity.

d. misuse of the product.

Question

Physics

Camille Stuart

11 January, 23:33

In March 2010, a New Jersey man's face was badly burned after leaning over his sizzling hot plate of fajitas from Applebee's restaurant to pray. He sued Applebee's for his injuries. The appeals court

determined that the restaurant was not responsible because it has no need to warn patrons " ... against a danger that is open and obvious." The ruling is based on what theory?

a. caveat emptor.

b. assumption of the risk.

c. no privity.

d. misuse of the product.

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Rhys Conley · Answer 1

B. Assumption of the risk

Explanation:

In law Assumption of risk involves preventing someone from claiming an accident damage due to the individual deliberately exposing himself to such danger.

In this case the man saw how hot the food was when it was brought and decided to pray. He then leaned towards it and got burnt. He is solely responsible for this because his actions caused it and it's his sole responsibility.