[Blow Up] Patty has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping and gardening company and needs the gas for her mowers, trimmers, tillers and weed eaters. On the way home from the gas station, Patty stops at her local garden store to stock up on supplies. Teresa, texting and driving, does not see Patty's pickup truck and negligently rear-ends Patty's truck. The truck explodes and results in the garden store burning to the ground. The garden store sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire garden store. The garden store claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

Is Teresa the proximate cause of the garden store burning?

Multiple Choice

• Teresa is not the proximate cause of the garden store burning because it was not foreseeable that Patty would have gas in the back of her pick-up truck that would result in such a fire.
• Teresa is not the proximate case of the accident because her actions were not the cause in fact of the accident.
• Teresa's actions were not the proximate cause of the accident because actual causation cannot be established since it was foreseeable that gas can result in a fire.
• Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the garden store's burning because actual cause is present.
• Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the garden store's burning because cause in fact can be established.

2.[Blow Up] Patty has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping and gardening company and needs the gas for her mowers, trimmers, tillers and weed eaters. On the way home from the gas station, Patty stops at her local garden store to stock up on supplies. Teresa, texting and driving, does not see Patty's pickup truck and negligently rear-ends Patty's truck. The truck explodes and results in the garden store burning to the ground. The garden store sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire garden store. The garden store claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

Claiming that recovery under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is an option, do you believe the garden store is correct?

Multiple Choice

• Yes, the garden store is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
• Yes, the garden store is correct only if Teresa has sufficient insurance to cover the garden store burning.
• Yes, the garden store is correct only if it can be established that Teresa was a repeat driving offender.
• No, the garden store is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of duty of care.
• No, the garden store is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.