What was the cause of action?

Group of answer choices

The parents of Robert Mogabgab filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging negligence in failing to perform their duty to provide necessary and reasonable care to prevent accidents, injuries, and sickness, and failing to provide for prompt treatment when injuries or sickness did occur.

The parents of Robert Mogabgab filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The parents of Robert Mogabgab filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging wrongful death in failing to perform their duty to provide necessary and reasonable care to prevent accidents, injuries, and sickness, and failing to provide for prompt treatment when injuries or sickness did occur.

The parents of Robert Mogabgab filed a lawsuit against the defendants, through the legal theory of vicarious liability, alleging negligence for failing to provide timely care to their son resulting in his death.

Flag question: Question $2$

Question $22$ pts

What was the court$$s disposition of the case?

Group of answer choices

The court remanded the case back to the lower court for a new trial.

The court upheld the lower court's ruling dismissing the plaintiff's case.

The court reversed the lower court's ruling dismissing the case against several defendants, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs $($Robert Mogabgab$$s parents$).$

The court did not take any action as the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for the appellate court to review.

Flag question: Question $3$

Question $32$ pts

Was it proved that Robert Mogabgab would have lived had a doctor arrived some precise period of time sooner?

Group of answer choices

Yes.

No$.$

Flag question: Question $4$

Question $42$ pts

What was the burden of proof required for the plaintiff to prevail in this case?

Group of answer choices

Preponderance of the evidence.

Clear and convincing.

Absolute certainty.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Flag question: Question $5$

Question $52$ pts

Explain the court$$s reasoning on the issue of causality.

Group of answer choices

The law does not require that plaintiff's prove with absolute certainty that Robert Mogabgab would have lived had he seen a doctor sooneror for what precise period of time the condition remained reversible.

The law requires that plaintiffs prove with absolute certainty that Robert Mogabgab would have lived had he seen a doctor sooner and for what precise period of time the condition remained reversible.

Because it cannot be scientifically proven whether Robert Mogabgab would have lived had he seen a doctor sooner, the issue of causality cannot be proven, therefore the plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law.

The law places the burden of proof on the defendants to prove that Robert Mogabgab would not have lived had he seen a doctor sooner.