“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.
이 소식을 빠르게 읽을 수 있도록 요약했습니다. 뉴스에 관심이 있으시면 여기에서 전문을 읽으실 수 있습니다. 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오: