A worker is injured during the installation of playground equipment at a public park. The equipment was provided with a faulty ladder, and the installation area has poor lighting. The worker sues the manufacturer and the city for negligence. Which of the following statements best describes the causation analysis for determining responsibility in this case?
Both the manufacturer and the city contributed to the injury through their actions.
Both parties' actions, along with other factors, contributed to the accident.
The manufacturer did not contribute to the injury because the poor lighting affects their responsibility.
The city contributed to the injury as the faulty ladder was a foreseeable cause.
Both the manufacturer and the city contributed to the injury through their actions. The faulty ladder provided by the manufacturer and the poor lighting from the city each independently satisfied the 'but for' test, making both parties responsible for the accident.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the 'but for' test in legal causation?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean for a party to have 'foreseeable cause' in negligence cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How can both parties be liable for negligence in a situation like this?