Multiple Choice
According to the text,is an employer negligent for failing to protect an employee from being attacked by a dog,whether or not the dog is known to have abnormally dangerous propensities? (See the Labaj v.VanHouston case.)
A) An employer has no duties in regard to an animal on the premises because of the rule that animals cannot be absolutely controlled under any circumstances.
B) An employer can be held strictly liable for failing to protect an employee from getting attached by a dog, even if the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
C) An employer cannot be negligent for failing to protect an employee from getting attached by a dog unless the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
D) An employer can be negligent for failing to protect an employee from getting attached by a dog, even if the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q20: Tort damages generally attempt to restore the
Q25: Which of the following is true regarding
Q39: Trespass to personal property and conversion are
Q40: Under which of the following systems may
Q40: The United States is regarded as providing
Q41: Fact Pattern 9-3<br>Alex and Blake got into
Q43: Define and explain the theory behind the
Q44: According to the text,can an employer be
Q46: In the classic case,Palsgraf v.Long Island Railroad
Q47: The _ doctrine imposes liability for physical