Question

Please answer the multiple choice question. Only choose one answer choice. Then write an IRAC answer about the issue that is being tested.

Peter built a small pond in front of his house for his prize koi fish. The pond was visible from the sidewalk. To keep people and animals away, Peter constructed an eight-foot high chain link fence between the sidewalk and the pond. One day, Stewie, a six-year­ old who lived next door, struggled over the fence to get a closer look at the koi. When Stewie bent down to "pet" a fish, he fell into the water, hit his head on the bottom of the pond, and was rendered unconscious. Three minutes later, Lois, a passerby, saw Stewie floating in the pond, and climbed over the fence to rescue him. Stewie suffered permanent brain damage in the accident, and sues Peter for negligence. Which of the following statements is most likely correct? 

Because Stewie was a trespasser to whom Peter did not owe a duty of reasonable care with respect to the koi pond, Peter will prevail. 

Even though Peter owed Stewie a duty of reasonable care with respect to the koi pond, Peter's construction of the fence probably satisfied that duty. 

Because the koi pond was visible from the sidewalk, Stewie will prevail. 

Because Stewie did not appreciate the danger posed by the koi pond, Stewie will prevail.

Answer 1

Because Stewie was a trespasser to whom Peter did not owe a duty of reasonable care with respect to the koi pond, Peter will prevail.

Issue- Stewie a trespasser accidentaly falls into pond of Peter which is properly fenced and all safety measures have taken so that no one can fall in the pond. Stewie suffered from permanent brain damage due to this accident and claiming for negligence of duty by Peter.

Rule-According to Occupiers Liability Act of 1957 and 1984, trespasser cannot claim for negligence in duty of care if any incident happened.

Analysis- Peter have devised all the warning symbol and signs andd also fenced the pond properly hence he has done the duty of care properly. Another fact is that Stewie is a trespasser hence it will not be applied in this case even though she suffered a massive injury.

Conclusion- By going on these facts it can be concluded that Stewie was a trespasser to whom Peter did not owe a duty of reasonable care with respect to the koi pond, Peter will prevail.