While visiting at his son's home, a grandfather tripped on a toy left on the floor by his four-year-old grandson. a. The grandfather fell and was severely injured. b. The grandfather regularly visited his son's home and was aware that the grandson routinely left toys scattered about the house. c. The son had never warned the grandfather to look out for toys.

a

Explanation:

Because he tripped on the toy this may lead to falling he may also get injured

Complete Question: While visiting at his son’s home, a grandfather tripped on a toy left on the floor by his four-year-old grandson. the grandfather fell and was severely injured. the grandfather regularly visited his son’s home and was aware that the grandson routinely left toys scattered about the house. the son had never warned the grandfather to look out for toys. the grandfather brought an action against his son to recover for his injuries. at trial, after the close of evidence, both the grandfather and the son have moved for judgment as a matter of law as to liability. the jurisdiction has abolished intra-family immunity and applies the traditional rules of landowner liability. what action should the court take?

The court should grant the son's motion. This is because the son has no duty to warn that the grandson might leave toys on the floor. This can be seen as torts negligence which is the tort whereby a duty of reasonable care was breached, causing damage: any conduct short of intentional or reckless action that falls below the legal standard for preventing unreasonable injury.

answer; for good luck

the consumer demand because the members have to be aware if people are going to buy what they want to sell in this case either energy drinks or a car wash.