168. In Parish v. ICON, where a person was severely injured when jumping on a trampoline and sued its maker and the
maker of a safety net for failure to warn, the Iowa high court held that:
a. the makers had no duty to warn because the danger was obvious
b. the makers had a poorly designed set of instructions
c. the case could be dismissed because the warnings were adequate
d. produced products that should never have been placed on the market because they are so dangerous that
warnings are unhelpful
e. none of the other choices
169. In Parish v. ICON, where a person was severely injured when jumping on a trampoline and sued its maker and the
maker of a safety net for failure to warn, the Iowa high court held that the manufacturers were not liable because:
a. trampolines are commonly known to be unavoidably dangerous
b. the is no requirement to provide warnings on products classified as toys
c. Parish was over 18 and thus should be held as a responsible adult
d. the warnings provided by the manufactures were adequate
e. none of the other choices are correct
170. In Parish v. ICON, where a person was severely injured when jumping on a trampoline and sued its maker and the
maker of a safety net for failure to warn, the Iowa high court held that the manufacturers were not liable because:
a. trampolines are commonly known to be unavoidably dangerous
b. the is no requirement to provide warnings on products classified as toys
c. Parish was over 18 and thus should be held as a responsible adult
d. the warnings provided by the manufactures were not adequate, but Parish was being reckless
e. none of the other choices are correct
171. If the manufacturer provides adequate warnings, as in the case of Parish v. ICON, where a person was severely
injured when jumping on a trampoline and sued its maker and the maker of a safety net for failure to warn,
consumers:
a. can still sue for failure to warn, but are limited in the amount of damages they can recover
b. cannot sue for failure to warn
c. can recover up to half their medical bills from the manufacturer
d. cannot negotiate for damages outside of court
e. none of the other choices are correct
172. To avoid being sued for failure to warn users of products, manufacturers must:
a. take lots of precautions in the manufacturing process
b. invest a lot in safety research
c. conduct regular customer satisfaction surveys
d. have mandatory safety training sessions for all employees
e. provide adequate warning labels and instructions on products
173. To avoid being sued for failure to warn users of products, manufacturers must:
a. take lots of precautions in the manufacturing process
b. invest a lot in safety research
c. conduct regular customer satisfaction surveys
d. have mandatory safety training sessions for all employees
e. none of the other choices are completely correct
174. To minimize the likelihood of being liable for failure to warn manufacturers must:
a. warn of possible dangers in use of a product
b. warn of possible dangers in the storage of a product
c. warn of possible dangers in the handling of a product
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
175. A Pennsylvania court imposed strict liability on a gun manufacturer because of hearing losses caused by long-term
users exposed to gunfire. The liability was based on:
a. latent defect
b. express warranty
c. defective design
d. failure to warn
e. none of the other choices
176. A Pennsylvania court imposed strict liability on a gun manufacturer because of hearing losses caused by long-term
users exposed to gunfire. The liability was based on:
a. latent defect
b. express warranty
c. defective design
d. implied warranty
e. none of the other choices
177. In which of the following cases was the manufacturer held liable based on failure to warn:
a. a gun manufacturer that failed to warn users of damage to hearing from long-term exposure to gunfire
b. a diet food producer that failed to provide adequate warnings about using the adult diet food as baby food
c. Johnson and Johnson not warning Tylenol users that liver damage could occur in heavy drinkers who used
Tylenol often
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
178. In which of the following cases discussed in the text was the manufacturer held liable based on failure to warn:
a. a gun manufacturer whose guns jammed, causing them to misfire
b. a diet food producer that failed to provide adequate warnings about using the adult diet food as baby food
c. a trampoline manufacturer that failed to put its warnings in French
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
179. In which of the following cases discussed in the text was the manufacturer held liable based on failure to warn:
a. a gun manufacturer whose guns jammed, causing them to misfire
b. a gun manufacturer that failed to warn users of damage to hearing from long-term exposure to gunfire
c. a trampoline manufacturer that failed to put its warnings in French
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
180. In which of the following cases discussed in the text was the manufacturer held liable based on failure to warn:
a. a gun manufacturer whose guns jammed, causing them to misfire
b. Johnson and Johnson not warning Tylenol users that liver damage could occur in heavy drinkers who used
Tylenol often
c. a trampoline manufacturer that failed to put its warnings in French
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
181. In which of the following cases discussed in the text was the manufacturer held liable based on failure to warn:
a. a gun manufacturer whose guns jammed, causing them to misfire
b. a power tool company that failed to include grounded power cords with their product
c. a trampoline manufacturer that failed to put its warnings in French
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
182. Design defect cases focus on:
a. whether an injury to users could have been prevented by designing the product differently
b. whether the manufacturer made a mistake during the manufacturing process
c. whether the manufacturer’s employees had proper training
d. the extent of the injury caused by the product
e. none of the other choices are correct
183. A manufacturer of a commercial french-frying machine was sued after someone using the machine reached in to
retrieve an item that had fallen out of his shirt pocket. The plaintiff was seriously burned as a result. The appellate
court upheld the trial court’s decision that imposed liability on the manufacturer based on:
a. design defect
b. negligence
c. failure to warn
d. contractual breach
e. unknown hazard
184. In which of the following cases was the manufacturer held liable based on design defect:
a. a worker lost a leg because he fell into a machine that was running, despite the removal of a metal plate. The
court held that the machine should not have been able to run with the plate removed.
b. a restaurant employee was seriously burned when he tried to retrieve something that fell out of his shirt
pocket and into a commercial French fryer machine. The court held that the machine could have been
designed more safely.
c. a child pushed the emergency stop button on an escalator, causing a person to fall and be injured. The court
held that the button was too attractive and accessible to children.
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
185. In Timpte Industries v. Gish, where Gish sued for design defect after he fell from the top rail of a trailer made by
Timpet, the state supreme court held that:
a. Timpte was liable because it would have been reasonable for them to make the rail wider and thus safer to
walk on
b. Timpte was liable because their warning labels were insufficient
c. Timpte was not liable because Gish worked for them
d. Timpte was not liable because the alleged design defects did not render the trailer unreasonably dangerous
e. none of the other choices are correct
186. In Timpet Industries v. Gish, where Gish sued for design defect after he fell from the top rail of a trailer made by
Timpet, the state supreme court used a(n) to determine whether the trailer design was defective by law.
a. ultimate risk factor test
b. risk-utility factor test
c. risk-liability factor test
d. knowledge of risk test
e. none of the other choices are correct
187. Unknown hazards products liability cases involve:
a. a small number of products liability cases
b. only cases involving asbestos
c. the largest dollar volume of products liability cases
d. cases in which the government is the defendant
e. cases in which the government is the plaintiff
188. In Timpte Industries v. Gish, where Gish sued for design defect after he fell from the top rail of a trailer made by
Timpte, the state supreme court held that:
a. Timpte was liable because it would have been reasonable for them to make the rail wider and thus safer to
walk on
b. Timpte was liable because their warning labels were insufficient
c. Timpte was not liable because Gish worked for them
d. Timpte was liable because the alleged design defects rendered the trailer unreasonably dangerous
e. none of the other choices are correct
189. Unknown hazards products liability cases involve:
a. a small number of products liability cases
b. only cases involving asbestos
c. mostly cases in which the government is the defendant
d. mostly cases in which the government is the plaintiff
e. none of the other choices
190. Unknown hazards are:
a. defects that occurred during the manufacturing process
b. defects that the manufacturer knew about, but did not reveal to the consumers
c. dangers that were not known or not fully appreciated at the time the product was manufactured
d. dangers that the consumer was aware of, but not able to avoid
e. none of the other choices are correct
191. Unknown hazards are:
a. defects that occurred during the manufacturing process
b. defects that the manufacturer knew about, but did not reveal to the consumers
c. the only kind of hazard that manufacturers cannot be held liable for
d. dangers that the consumer was aware of, but not able to avoid
e. none of the other choices are correct
192. Dangers that were not known or not fully appreciated at the time the product was manufactured are known as
and account for the largest dollar volume and greatest number of product liability cases.
a. unknown hazards or latent defects
b. known hazards or latent defects
c. unknown hazards or quiet defects
d. unknown hazards or delayed defects
e. potential hazards or delayed defects
193. Dangers that were not known or not fully appreciated at the time the product was manufactured are known as
and account for the largest dollar volume and greatest number of product liability cases.
a. potential hazards or delayed defects
b. known hazards or latent defects
c. unknown hazards or quiet defects
d. unknown hazards or delayed defects
e. none of the other choices are correct
194. The most active area of strict liability litigation based on the concept of unknown hazards involves which product?
a. nuclear waste
b. automobiles
c. petrochemicals
d. asbestos
e. financial securities
195. The amount of money involved in asbestos liability litigation is at least:
a. $1 billion
b. $4 billion
c. $10 billion
d. $15 billion
e. $100 billion
196. When an injured party is allowed to sue all manufacturers of a defective product, so that all these manufacturers
might be liable together, this is sometimes called:
a. absolute liability
b. strict liability
c. limited liability
d. industry liability
e. none of the other choices
197. If it is not clear who the actual manufacturer of a product is, plaintiffs:
a. may not sue more than one manufacturer of a defective product
b. may sue any or all of the manufacturers of a defective product
c. may sue more than one manufacturer if the injury from the defective product prevents the plaintiff from
being able to “engage in normal activity”
d. may sue up to three, but not more than three, manufacturers of a defective product
e. none of the choices are correct
198. If, instead of allowing a plaintiff to sue all manufacturers of a given product, a court allows defendants to bring in
other manufacturers as defendants, this is known as:
a. unknown hazard share liability
b. defect sharing liability
c. joint and several liability
d. strict liability
e. express liability
199. Product misuse can be used as a defense in a product liability suit if:
a. it can be shown that the product was misused
b. it can be shown that the product was combined with another product to make it dangerous
c. it can be shown that the product was not maintained properly
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
200. If the consumer knows the risks associated with the use of a product and still chooses to use it he is:
a. assuming the risk and thus relieving the manufacturer of liability
b. assuming the risk, but not relieving the manufacturer of liability
c. still able to sue if the manufacturer if injured because of ultimate liability
d. still able to sue the manufacturer if injured because of absolute liability
e. none of the other choices are correct
201. Defenses against strict liability include(s):
a. product abuse
b. assumption of risk
c. sophisticated user
d. all of the other specific choices are possible
e. none of the other choices; there is no defense for strict liability
202. Assumption of the risk may bar recovery under strict liability for which products?
a. alcoholic beverages
b. prescription drugs
c. cigarettes
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other choices are relevant
203. The bulk-supplier doctrine holds that the bulk supplier:
a. has a duty to take reasonable steps to insure that its buyer is knowledgeable and equipped to provide
warnings to the ultimate users, but it does not have to police the details of what is done as the product
continues down the chain of use
b. has no duty to take reasonable steps to insure that its buyer is knowledgeable and equipped to provide
warnings to the ultimate users, and it does not have to police the details of what is done as the product
continues down the chain of use
c. has a duty to take reasonable steps to insure that its buyer is knowledgeable and equipped to provide
warnings to the ultimate users and must police the details of what is done as the product continues down the
chain of use
d. is liable for injuries caused by any item sold
e. none of the other choices are correct
204. The holds that the bulk supplier has a duty to take reasonable steps to insure that its buyer is knowledgeable
and equipped to provide warnings to the ultimate users, but it does not have to police the details of what is done as
the product continues down the chain of use.
a. commercial-supplier doctrine
b. final-supplier doctrine
c. bulk–supplier doctrine
d. small-scale supplier doctrine
e. Wal–Mart-supplier doctrine
205. The holds that the bulk supplier has a duty to take reasonable steps to insure that its buyer is knowledgeable
and equipped to provide warnings to the ultimate users, but it does not have to police the details of what is done as
the product continues down the chain of use.
a. commercial-supplier doctrine
b. final-supplier doctrine
c. Wal–Mart-supplier doctrine
d. small-scale supplier doctrine
e. none of the other choices are correct
206. One who by experience and expertise is aware of the possible health hazards associated with the use of a product
and who has an obligation to inform its employees and customers of potential hazards is referred to as a(n):
a. company buyer
b. secondary purchaser
c. primary purchaser
d. sophisticated user
e. informed buyer
207. One who by experience and expertise is aware of the possible health hazards associated with the use of a product
and who has an obligation to inform its employees and customers of potential hazards is:
a. company buyer
b. secondary purchaser
c. primary purchaser
d. informed buyer
e. none of the other choices
208. The relieves a manufacturer of liability for failing to warn of a product’s characteristics or dangers when “the
end user knows or reasonably should know of a product’s dangers”
a. naïve user defense
b. smart user defense
c. intelligent user defense
d. sophisticated user defense
e. informed user defense
209. The relieves a manufacturer of liability for failing to warn of a product’s characteristics or dangers when “the
end user knows or reasonably should know of a product’s dangers”
a. naïve user defense
b. smart user defense
c. intelligent user defense
d. informed user defense
e. none of the other choices are correct
210. The sophisticated user defense:
a. relieves a manufacturer of liability for failing to warn of a product’s characteristics or dangers when “the end
user knows or reasonably should know of a product’s dangers”
b. does not relieve a manufacturer of liability for failing to warn of a product’s characteristics or dangers when
“the end user knows or reasonably should know of a product’s dangers”
c. limits damage awards to less than $1 million when “the end user knows or reasonably should know of a
product‘s dangers”
d. limits damage awards to less than $100,000 when “the end user knows or reasonably should know of a
product‘s dangers”
e. none of the other choices are correct
211. The sophisticated user defense:
a. relieves a manufacturer of liability for failing to warn of a product’s characteristics or dangers when “the end
user does not know of a product‘s dangers”
b. does not relieve a manufacturer of liability for failing to warn of a product’s characteristics or dangers when
“the end user knows or reasonably should know of a product’s dangers”
c. limits damage awards to less than $1 million when “the end user knows or reasonably should know of a
product‘s dangers”
d. limits damage awards to less than $100,000 when “the end user knows or reasonably should know of a
product‘s dangers”
e. none of the other choices are correct
212. Company B uses dangerous acid made by Company A in its production. B fails to warn a new employee of the
risks in using the acid and the employee is injured. If Company B is sued by the employee, its defense will be that A
and the employee are:
a. accomplices
b. in violation of federal safety regulations
c. sophisticated users
d. not covered due to lack of warranty
e. ruthless capitalist oppressors
213. Company B uses dangerous acid made by Company A in its production. B fails to warn a new employee of the
risks in using the acid and the employee is injured. If Company B is sued by the employee, its defense will be that A
and the employee are:
a. accomplices
b. in violation of federal safety regulations
c. in privity of contract
d. not covered due to lack of warranty
e. none of the other choices