Fred sued Document Security Company, alleging he had suffered injuries to his hands
as a result of attempting to fix a jam in one of Document Security’s paper shredders.
Fred alleged the shredder was defective because it failed to contain warnings regarding
the dangers to fingers and hands while attempting to fix jams. In order to succeed, Fred
will have to show:
a. all risk of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable
instructions or warnings by Document Security Company.
b. paper shredders are inherently dangerous products.
c. his injuries would not have occurred but for the absence of the warnings.
d. foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of
reasonable instructions or warnings by Document Security Company.
Answer:
Brianna is in charge of new federal agency set up to monitor farming operations. The
agency wishes to institute a rule regarding the use of pesticides. Brianna tells her
associates to publish the proposed rule but to decline taking comments on the rule
because she does not want to deal with unhappy farmers. Assuming you are legal
counsel to the agency, what would you tell Brianna regarding her plan to refuse
comments on the proposed rule?
a. That her plan is a bad one because the Administrative Procedure Act requires that the
public be given an opportunity to comment before a federal agency can promulgate a
rule.
b. That her plan is a bad one because while the Administrative Procedure Act does not
generally require that the public be given an opportunity to comment, it does require
that agencies take public comments when food safety is involved.
c. That her plan is a bad one because while the Administrative Procedure Act does not
generally require that the public be given an opportunity to comment, it does require
that agencies take public comments in all cases other than rule involving taxation.
d. That her plan is a good one.