PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 7
Currently, the city of Grimchester is liable for(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(22 more words not shown)
- AA person is(27 more words not shown)
- BA person is(18 more words not shown)
- CA person is(27 more words not shown)
- DA person who(17 more words not shown)
- EA person riding(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The city can't find and fix every dangerous sidewalk. The author wants that practical limit to matter when we decide which injuries the city should answer for.
Keep the current rule and the proposed rule separate. Currently, the city is liable when someone is injured because a sidewalk needs repair or maintenance. The author would add two requirements: the city must have known about the danger beforehand, and it must have negligently failed to eliminate it. Simply having an injury on a sidewalk isn't enough to satisfy either version automatically.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an injury covered now but not under the author's proposed standard. My first thought is an injury from a sidewalk defect the city didn't know about. That would satisfy the current rule but fail the new knowledge requirement. We'll need to check both requirements in the answers.
Working the answers
- A
The uneven sidewalk fits the current rule, but the city has been repeatedly told about it for years. That gives us the kind of prior knowledge and unaddressed danger the proposed rule is meant to cover. A doesn't show the change we're looking for: liability now but no liability under the new standard.
- B
The person trips over a shopping bag, not a defect in the sidewalk. The current rule covers injuries caused by a sidewalk's need for repair or maintenance. We aren't given such a problem here. Don't treat every accident that happens on a sidewalk as an injury caused by the sidewalk's condition.
- CCorrect
The hole is a sidewalk defect, so it triggers the current rule. The new standard changes the result because the city only learned about the hole minutes earlier.
This is a little different from my initial prediction. The city did know about the danger, but knowledge is only one requirement. It must also have negligently failed to eliminate it. Minutes of notice give the city little opportunity to arrange a repair; the fact that the hole remained isn't evidence of neglect of the kind described in A. C is the case where the added negligence requirement matters.
- D
A perfectly even sidewalk with no visible defect doesn't give us the repair or maintenance problem required by the current rule. The stated circumstances point to the person's intoxication instead. This doesn't establish liability under the starting rule, so it can't show liability being removed by the proposed one.
- E
The accident results from swerving around a pedestrian. We aren't told of any sidewalk defect that contributed. As with B and D, the location of the accident doesn't establish that the existing rule covers it. We need an injury caused by a sidewalk in need of work.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.