Filmont designed and constructed a playground for children. Shortly thereafter, Filmont dedicated the property to the city of Oakville, to be used as a public park. Ken, a 10-year-old resident of Oakville, was playing at the park when he fell off the monkey bars, breaking his leg. On his behalf, Ken's parents filed suit against Filmont and Oakville, on the grounds of negligence in the design of the monkey bars. At the trial, Filmont was granted a directed verdict, because Oakville now owns the park. Ken's parents appealed the granting of the directed verdict as to Filmont. The appellate court will most likely hold that:
A. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be upheld, because Filmont was relieved of liability when he dedicated the park to Oakville.
B. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be upheld, because Filmont designed and constructed the park in the public interest.
C. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be overturned if plaintiffs introduced evidence that Filmont dedicated the park to Oakville in an effort to avoid liability for the park's negligent design.
D. The decision to grant the directed verdict should be overturned, because Filmont's liability for negligence was not affected by the dedication of the park to Oakville.
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
D