Multiple Choice
According to the text,is an employer negligent for failing to protect an employee from being attacked by a dog,regardless of whether the dog is known to have abnormally dangerous propensities? (See the Labaj v.VanHouton 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 attacked 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 attacked 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 attacked by a dog,even if the dog is not known to possess abnormally dangerous propensities.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q21: A single set of facts may give
Q22: The tort of malicious prosecution protects the
Q23: In CASE 9.1 Kubert v.Best (2013),the court
Q24: Under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act,websites
Q25: Which of the following is true regarding
Q27: Which of the following is true regarding
Q28: Playing loud music late at night for
Q29: The wrongful interference with the right to
Q30: _ occurs when an individual exercises dominion
Q31: Malin told Parker that Parker could park