Q7 - Currently, the city of Grimchester

[skapur777]

Was stuck between B and C and was stuck for a loong time.

Why couldn't it be B? According to the stimulus, the city is liable for any injury incurred from any city sidewalk in need of repair or maintenance. That's why I was gonna get rid of B because it is technically nothing to do with the road itself. But the second sentence in the stimulus confused me. It said,"..it is impossible...to locate and eliminate every possible danger in its sidewalks" and thus I thought that since the shopping bag is a danger on its sidewalk, the sidewalk is in need of maintenance and thus it falls under the umbrella of the policy. But now I notice that there is a difference between stuff ON the road and IN the road, and that's where I went wrong right?

As for C, it said that the city admin had first learned of the need to repair the sidewalk minutes before. We don't know many minutes before, but we know that knew about the danger beforehand. We don't know if they 'negligently failed' to eliminate it, but it's definitely a possibility. So we do not know for sure if the government is liable or not under the principle cited in the last sentence of the stimulus.

[noah]

Why couldn't it be B? According to the stimulus, the city is liable for any injury incurred from any city sidewalk in need of repair or maintenance. ....I notice that there is a difference between stuff ON the road and IN the road, and that's where I went wrong right?

That's it! It's the same as (E).

As for C, it said that the city admin had first learned of the need to repair the sidewalk minutes before. We don't know many minutes before, but we know that knew about the danger beforehand. We don't know if they 'negligently failed' to eliminate it, but it's definitely a possibility. So we do not know for sure if the government is liable or not under the principle cited in the last sentence of the stimulus.

That "a few minutes before" is distracting indeed. But, the stimulus doesn't say how far in advance the knowledge has to be...

As for the other choices:

(A) the gov't would be liable under either principle.
(D) the gov't would NOT be liable under either.
(E) the gov't would NOT be liable under either.

[skapur777]

That's where my confusion lies. I now see how B is incorrect. However, we are never told how many minutes before qualifies as 'the government knew about the danger beforehand", and since it doesn't say so, how can we pick C? We cannot confidently know that the government would not be liable under the new principle.

[sukim764]

In order for governments to be liable for injuries, the principle states two necessary conditions: they knew about the danger beforehand [b]and[b]negligently failed to eliminate it.
The correct answer choice, therefore, would describe an injury for which the government would not be held liable. Hence, we take the contrapositive: if they did not know about the danger beforehand OR did not negligently failed to eliminate it, they are not held liable. Answer choice C satisfies the second part of the contrapositive: the government did not negligently failed to eliminate it, and how could they have, they only discovered the large hole only minutes before.

I hope this helps!

[mishra.shubhi]

I picked A and I am still confused as to why that would not fulfill both the principles? Is it because the sidewalk is "uneven" instead of having a "hole" in it? Answer choice A does state that the government officials knew about the uneven sidewalk for several years so clearly they knew about it beforehand. Should they not be liable for ignoring it?

[anjelica.grace]

I picked A and I am still confused as to why that would not fulfill both the principles? Is it because the sidewalk is "uneven" instead of having a "hole" in it? Answer choice A does state that the government officials knew about the uneven sidewalk for several years so clearly they knew about it beforehand. Should they not be liable for ignoring it?

The government would be liable under both principles, as Noah described above.

The reason it is liable under the current principle is simply for the fact that the person in (A) suffered an "injury incurred because of a city sidewalk in need of repair or maintenance." Whether it's uneven or has holes doesn't matter; the sidewalk is messed up.

The reason it is liable under the proposed principle is because the government has been "repeatedly informed of the need to repair the sidewalk for several years."

Therefore, neither principle offers the government protection from liability for the injury described in (A).

Hope this makes some sense!

[lanham_charles]

The city will be liable if they "knew" beforehand, and "negligently failed to fix it". the question however, state which on they would be liable for, but shouldn't be. A: states that a person is injured while the city knew about it for years, and neglected it. C: states that the city only knew of the hole just minutes before. In B, the city didn't really have a chance to fix the hole, so they could be held as liable, but shouldn't be.