A seventy-year-old woman, using the escalator at the airport, dropped a glove. When she attempted to pick it up, she lost her balance and fell. As a result of the accident, she suffered a fractured arm. In an action by her against the company that had the responsibility for maintaining the escalator, the defendant company will argue which of the following for its best defence?

Question

A seventy-year-old woman, using the escalator at the airport, dropped a glove. When she attempted to pick it up, she lost her balance and fell. As a result of the accident, she suffered a fractured arm. In an action by her against the company that had the responsibility for maintaining the escalator, the defendant company will argue which of the following for its best defence?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

In this scenario, we’re evaluating what defense a company responsible for maintaining an escalator might raise in a civil action after the plaintiff slipped and fell.
Option 1: It did not manufacture the escalator. This line of defense would be about product liability or manufacturer responsibility, but the case concerns maintenance responsibility and a personal injury claim arising from an escalator in operation, not a manufacturing defect. Therefore, this defense is not the strongest or most relevant here.
Option 2: The woman is liable because of contributory negligence. This defense argues that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety (for example, attempting to pick up a dropped glove while on the moving escalator, which could have caused her to lose balance). Contributory or comparative negligence is a classic, plausible defense in premises and safety duties cases, and it directly addresses the conduct that led to the accident.
Option 3: Injuries suffered on an escalator are not reasonably foreseeable. Escalator injuries are indeed foreseeable risks in the context of using such equipment, so denying foreseeability would be factually and legally incorrect as a general proposition for this kind of case.
Option 4: There are no damages. The plaintiff clearly sustained a fractured arm, which constitutes damages. Claiming there are no damages would be factually inconsistent with the injury described and would undermine, rather than support, a defense.
Option 5: It does not owe those who ride the escalator a duty of care. In premises liability and safety maintenance contexts, operators typically owe a duty of care to users to maintain reasonably safe conditions. Arguing that there is no duty of care would be contrary to established duties of care for managers of public facilities, making this option an unlikely best defense.

Overall, the strongest and most directly applicable defense in this set is that the woman was contributorily negligent by attempting to retrieve a dropped glove while on an escalator, thereby increasing her own risk of harm. The other options misstate roles (manufacturing vs. maintenance responsibilities), mischaracterize risks (foreseeability), or misstate duties and damages, and thus are weaker or incorrect in this context.

Similar Questions

Which of the following statements is correct about contributory negligence?

If the defendant (‘D’) in a negligent case successfully proves the defence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff (‘P’), which is correct.

What pioneering technique is being used by Musk and Bezos to reduce the cost of space travel?

What is the different approach that Allen and Branson are taking, compared with other organisations?

In the article, what is the billionaires’ attitude toward space travel?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler