“The allegation that such a contractual relationship exists, alone, is insufficient to plead vicarious liability,” DUT argued.
It also argued the pain and suffering claim should be dismissed because no proof had been presented, and that the law only recognised physical pain and suffering, which is not pleaded by the plaintiff. The university said there were no allegations in any of the claims by the plaintiffs that the alleged damage was reasonably foreseeable by DUT and no facts were presented to establish fault on its part.
Nous avons résumé cette actualité afin que vous puissiez la lire rapidement. Si l'actualité vous intéresse, vous pouvez lire le texte intégral ici. Lire la suite: