問題詳情：
On Christmas Day, 2003, a woman named Nancy Sue Brown took her daughter and grandchildren to see a movie at an AMC theater. When the movie was over, the crowd made for the exits. A theater employee had just finished mopping the hallway and dutifully placed the “wet floor” sign in the slippery area. No one slipped due to the wet conditions, but someone did manage to knock over the sign. And by the time Ms. Brown got to the area, the sign was lying on the floor. And shortly thereafter, so was she. Her foot got caught in the sign, in a bad way, and she fell. Unfortunately Ms. Brown had undergone a back operation, and the fall caused more damage than it otherwise would have. So she and her husband sued (提起訴訟).
AMC argued that the entire point of the “wet floor” sign above was to warn of danger, and therefore, courts should encourage the use by not allowing Brown’s case to proceed(繼續進行). AMC referred to a case about a December, 1998 incident, where a “wet floor” sign, not in use, fell to the floor causing another trip-and-fall. In that case, Georgia’s Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the store, but didn’t go so far as to say that “wet floor’ signs couldn’t give rise to legal liability (責任) in trip-and-fall accidents. In the Brown case, the Supreme Court therefore rejected AMC’s argument that the former case applied.
But the Browns argued something surprising that the “wet floor” sign was, itself, dangerous, because “using this type of sign in areas passed by lots of customers creates an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to the public in the form of tripping hazards(危險).” That’s right—the safety sign, used in the way it was designed, was itself dangerous. The court thankfully didn’t accept that argument, at least not entirely. But it did conclude that Brown’s case could continue to a jury(陪審團)— “a merchant’s selection and use of equipment designed to warn customers of one danger that have the potential to expose them to a different one.”
5. According to the text, Ms. Brown ________.
A. slipped on the wet floor B. tripped over a warning sign
C. knocked over a warning sign D. was knocked down by the crowd
6. AMC mentioned the 1998 case in order to ________.
A. accept its legal liability for Ms. Brown’s loss
B. prove MS. Brown had some physical problems
C. stress that it had no legal liability for the accident
D. prove other customers were responsible for the accident
7. What can we learn about the Brown case from the last paragraph?
A. It would be judged by jury.
B. It would not be allowed to proceed.
C. The court would rule in favor of AMC.
D. The court accepted all the arguments of the Browns.
8. The underlined word “one” in the last paragraph refers to “________”.
A. danger B. customer C. business owner D. equipment in public places
【回答】
BCAA
知識點：*經濟文化類閱讀
題型：閱讀理解
