Which of the following statements about Currie v.Chevron U.S.A. ,Inc. ,the case in the text,is true?

A) The gas station attendant committed her own affirmative negligent act separate from her employment with Chevron.
B) There was a sufficient conflict in the evidence for reasonable minds to differ as to whether the circumstances of that morning would have put the gas station attendant on notice that activating the gas pump would pose an unreasonable risk of harm.
C) Muhammad's attack was unforeseeable because the Chevron station was in a low crime area and had not been the site of any criminal activity in previous years.
D) There was no evidence from which the jury could have found that Shukla was aware that Muhammad and Antoine were involved in a serious fight at the Chevron station before she activated the gas pump for Muhammad.

Question

Oziel Leyva · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : B, Explanation :  In this case,there was a sufficient conflict in the evidence for reasonable minds to differ as to whether the particular serious and exigent events unfolding right before Shukla at the Chevron station that morning,together along with Robinson's warning,should have put her on notice that activating the gas pump for Muhammad would pose an unreasonable risk of harm to Antoine,even though there was no history of prior similar incidents at this specific Chevron station.Therefore,the court could not say that the district court erred in denying Chevron's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions