Seline operates, as a sole proprietorship, a dog grooming service under the fictitious name "Grooving to Grooming." She specializes in preparing her canine clients for dog shows.
Unfortunately, one of Susie's employees used a bad combination of grooming products, causing an extreme amount of hair loss on a prize poodle. The poodle's owner sued Seline. Seline was not
overly concerned, because she had most of her assets in her own name, and only a small amount of capital invested in her business. Is Seline's lack of concern about the safety of her personal assets warranted?
A) no, Seline should be concerned about her personal assets, but only because injury rather than property damage was involved, and she can, therefore, be sued personally
B) yes, Seline is right to be unconcerned, so long as she gave customers notice that she was operating under a fictitious name
C) yes, Seline is right to be unconcerned, because it is impossible for the plaintiff to reach her personal assets
D) no, Seline should be concerned about her personal assets because, as a sole proprietor, her personal assets may be taken to satisfy any judgment resulting from employee negligence committed in the "course and scope" of employment
E) no, Seline should be concerned about her personal assets, but only because she operated under a fictitious name and she can, therefore, be sued personally