A grocer mops an aisle and leaves no warning sign; a shopper slips and fractures a wrist. Which pair of negligence elements does the unmarked wet floor most directly establish?
Explanation
A store owes customers reasonable care, and mopping without posting a warning falls below that standard, so the unmarked wet floor supplies duty and breach. The fracture and its costs supply damages, and the causal chain supplies proximate cause; those are separate elements the claimant still has to prove. Strict liability does not apply, because routine floor cleaning is not an abnormally dangerous activity.
This topic, taught in full in the California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide. California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent Study Guide — 2026 Edition — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 531 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- Liability that is imposed on a party regardless of fault or negligence, such as for abnormally dangerous activities, is called:
- In a liability policy, the coverage that responds to bodily injury or property damage the insured becomes legally obligated to pay is triggered by:
- An umbrella liability policy primarily provides:
- States take different approaches to a plaintiff who is partly at fault. Under a comparative negligence approach, the plaintiff's recovery is:
- A spectator sits behind the dugout at an amateur ball game, is struck by a foul ball, and sues the club. The club's strongest defence is that the spectator:
- A driver negligently blocks a traffic lane; twenty minutes later an unrelated drunk driver strikes the stopped car. The drunk driver's conduct is best described as:
Last reviewed: · editorial process