Resurfice v Hanke
For
"(2014.Spring 3 c.) → 0.500 pts" in the battle quizzes, the solution states, "Accident WAS NOT reasonably forseeable".
Since the trial judge said the accident was reasonably forseeable by Hanke's own admittance, and that the trial ruling was reinstated, shouldn't it say "accident WAS reasonably forseeable"?
Comments
I've always found the wording of the "but for" test confusing so here's how I think about the case in my own words:
Ah I see. This helps, thanks!
Hi,
So can I say that because that the water and gas tank should have labelled differently, therefore it is not reasonably foreseeable. And so the "But for" test is applied.
"But for" means "even not", so even the 2 tanks not being arranged as closes as they are, would the explosion still occur? And the answer is yes? because its not the design fault, but the negligence for not giving proper attention by plaintiff when filling up the machine? Therefore it failed the but for test?
I here try to convince myself about how this actually fail the "but for test"?
Thanks and Cheers,
Wilson
Yes, the "but for" test is applied because the accident was not reasonably forseeeable.
The question that must be asked for the "but for" test is:
The answer is yes. The accident still would have happened because the plaintiff (Hanke) was careless, not because of the design of the Zamboni. The conclusion is that the defendant is not liable.
Right, crystal clear. Thanks Graham!