At the close of a trial involving the alleged negligence of a pilot-in-command, which of the following BEST describes the law that the court will apply to the facts to determine whether or not the pilot-in-command had a duty under negligence?
A the reasonable person standard
B compare the defendant pilot's conduct to what a reasonable person would have done in the same or similar circumstances
C whether or not the PIC's conduct proximately caused the plaintiff's damages
D compare the defendant pilot's conduct to what a reasonable plaintiff would have done in the same or similar circumstances
laughter_every_day
b
frenchy
I believe is A-the reasonable person standard. The question usually is what is reasonable. What the majority of the people and/or court consider reasonable.
raichasays
C.
Under US legal theory, you owe a duty to those who foreseeably may be harmed by your actions. If the action is not the proximate cause of the damage, then the damage was not foreseeable. If it was not foreseable, there is no duty.
Orignal From: At the close of a trial involving the alleged negligence of a pilot-in-command, which of the following BEST de
Post a Comment