214. Which of the following is not a potential statutory limit on potential tort liability:
a. worker compensation statutes
b. certain products that must follow federal labeling requirements
c. products made in foreign country under their liability laws for sale in the U.S.
d. government contractors building according to government specifications
e. federal regulations controlling radiation exposure
215. Which of the following is a potential statutory limit on potential tort liability:
a. worker compensation statutes
b. certain products that must follow federal labeling requirements
c. federal regulations controlling radiation exposure
d. government contractors building according to government specifications
e. all of the other choices are correct
216. Worker compensation statutes are an example of:
a. a potential statutory limit on workplace tort liability
b. a statutory limit on how many cases may be brought against a manufacturer for a defective product that
causes injuries
c. a potential cause for tort liability for a manufacturer
d. the main cause of most business tort cases
e. none of the other choices are correct
217. Federal regulations controlling radiation exposure are an example of:
a. a potential statutory limit on tort liability
b. a statutory limit on how many cases may be brought against a manufacturer for a defective product that
causes injuries
c. a potential cause for tort liability for a manufacturer
d. the main cause of most business tort cases
e. none of the other choices are correct
218. Ultrahazardous activity is activity that:
a. “necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land, or chattels of another, which can be
eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care” and “is not a matter of common usage.”
b. “necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land, or chattels of another, which cannot be
eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care” and “is not a matter of common usage.”
c. “necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land, or chattels of another, which cannot be
eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care” and “is a matter of common usage.”
d. “necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land, or chattels of another, which can be
eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care” and “is a matter of common usage.”
e. none of the other choices are correct
219. Activity that “necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land, or chattels of another, which cannot be
eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care” and “is not a matter of common usage” is called:
a. metahazardous activity
b. superhazardous activity
c. ultrahazardous activity
d. megahazardous activity
e. none of the other choices are correct
220. Activity that “necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land, or chattels of another, which cannot be
eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care” and “is not a matter of common usage” is called:
a. metahazardous activity
b. superhazardous activity
c. very hazardous activity
d. megahazardous activity
e. none of the other choices are correct
221. Which of the following activities is an example of an ultrahazardous activity:
a. crop dusting
b. blasting with explosives
c. transporting chemicals in a city
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
222. Which of the following activities is an example of an ultrahazardous activity:
a. jumping on a trampoline
b. operating a nail gun
c. transporting chemicals in a city
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
223. Which of the following activities is an example of an ultrahazardous activity:
a. jumping on a trampoline
b. operating a nail gun
c. blasting with explosives
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
224. Which of the following activities is an example of an ultrahazardous activity:
a. jumping on a trampoline
b. operating a nail gun
c. crop dusting
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
225. In Old Island Fumigation v. Barbee, a fumigation company sprayed two condominiums. Some of the fumes
leaked, without Old Island’s knowledge, into a third, unprotected condominium. In this case:
a. Old Island was strictly liable for the harms caused in the third condominium
b. the condo owners were strictly liable for their harms
c. the condo owners were contributorily negligent
d. the condo owners were comparatively negligent
e. the condo owners assumed the risk; Old Island was not liable
226. In Old Island Fumigation v. Barbee, a fumigation company sprayed two condominiums. Some of the fumes
leaked, without Old Island’s knowledge, into a third, unprotected condominium. In this case Old Island:
a. was not liable because adequate warnings had been given
b. was contributorily negligent
c. was subject to comparative negligence
d. was not liable; the owners of the buildings were
e. none of the other choices
227. The rule concerning ultrahazardous activities has been applied to:
a. crop dusting
b. chemicals in water supplies
c. blasting with explosives
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other choices
228. The rule concerning ultrahazardous activities has been applied to:
a. crop dusting
b. restaurant food
c. airline crashes
d. all of the other specific choices
e. none of the other choices
229. Negligence of other parties is irrelevant to the imposition of liability in cases.
a. ultrahazardous activity
b. limited liability
c. misrepresentation
d. fraud
e. none of the other choices are correct
230. Negligence of other parties is irrelevant to the imposition of liability in cases.
a. megahazardous activity
b. limited liability
c. misrepresentation
d. fraud
e. none of the other choices are correct
231. Parties engaging in ultrahazardous activities are liable for injuries:
a. unless the injured party somehow profited from the activity before being injured
b. unless the injured party should have known better
c. regardless of the level of care exercised in carrying out the activity
d. unless there is sufficient care shown in carrying out the activity
e. none of the other choices are correct
232. Parties engaging in ultrahazardous activities are liable for injuries:
a. unless the injured party somehow profited from the activity before being injured
b. unless the injured party should have known better
c. unless there are sufficient warning signs and labels
d. unless there is sufficient care shown in carrying out the activity
e. none of the other choices are correct
233. The “tort crisis” in the U.S.:
a. is increasingly making American firms less competitive
b. is abating
c. is getting worse every year
d. is growing slowly
e. none of the other choices are correct
234. The “tort crisis” in the U.S.:
a. punishes American companies but not foreign firms that sell in the U.S.
b. keeps jumping in costs annually
c. has seen a rise in bad-quality expert testimony
d. has caused the bankruptcy of 15 of the largest 100 firms in the U.S. in the past decade
e. none of the other choices
235. One evening you eat at the salad bar of a restaurant. The potato salad looks a bit odd, but you stuff it down
anyway. You get food poisoning from the salad, which was left at room temperature too long. If you sue the
restaurant, they are likely to be:
a. strictly liable for violating express warranties that exist at all restaurants
b. strictly liable for violating implied warranties that exist for food
c. not liable because of your assumption of the risk at the restaurant
d. not liable because of contributory negligence for not asking about the safety of the salad
e. not liable because of the rule of caveat emptor
236. “Sports Glasses” advertises that is product will not break when used in contact sports. A hockey player catches a
stick in the face; his “Sports Glasses” break and injure him. He sues the makers of “Sports Glasses.” They likely be
held:
a. not liable because of assumption of the risk in contact sports
b. not liable because evidence shows that no technology exists that will prevent glasses from breaking under
strong enough force
c. not liable because of lack of a written warranty
d. liable in strict liability based on express warranty
e. liable in strict liability for market share liability
237. Claude Farmer wants flooring material to put in his dairy barn so that his prize cows will not have to stand on
concrete. Julie Salesperson assures Claude that Like-A-Cloud rubber flooring will provide adequate cushioning for
Claude‘s herd. Based on her assurances, Claude buys the flooring. He has:
a. a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
b. no warranty at all
c. an express warranty
d. a warranty of habitability
e. none of the other choices
238. Maria opens her refrigerator door to get a bottle of “Diet Wrong” soda. When she grabs the bottle it explodes,
cutting her badly. Expert examination of bottle fragments does not reveal anything wrong with the bottle. Her
lawsuit against “Diet Wrong” will likely result in the producer being held:
a. not liable for lack of evidence of defect
b. not liable because of contributory negligence by Maria
c. not liable; the lawsuit must be filed against the company that produced the bottle
d. liable for violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
e. liable in strict liability for producing a defective product that injured a consumer
239. While sitting beside a swimming pool, a neighbor, Bob, a roof installer, tells you that you should buy stock in HotNet
because it is about to skyrocket in value. You invest all your money in the stock, which then drops to zero. You:
a. cannot sue Bob for misrepresentation
b. can sue Bob for negligent misrepresentation, but not for fraud
c. can sue Bob for deceit, but not for intentional misrepresentation
d. can sue Bob for negligent misrepresentation, but not for intentional misrepresentation
e. can sue Bob for fraud, but not for fraudulent misrepresentation
240. While sitting beside a swimming pool, a neighbor, Bob, a roof installer, tells you that you should buy stock in HotNet
because it is about to skyrocket in value. You invest all your money in the stock, which then drops to zero. You can
successfully sue Bob for:
a. negligent misrepresentation, but not for fraud
b. deceit, but not for intentional misrepresentation
c. negligent misrepresentation, but not for intentional misrepresentation
d. fraud, but not for fraudulent misrepresentation
e. none of the other choices
241. E Corp. sold five million toasters. The company never had a safety problem. One of its toasters, for no clear
reason, electrocutes the son of the woman who bought the toaster. In her suit against E Corp. for the death of her
son (a tort), the company is likely to be held:
a. not liable because one in five million is evidence of high quality, not a safety problem
b. not liable because the toaster was purchased by the woman, not her son, so there is no right of suit
c. not liable because of assumption of the risk
d. liable for failure to warn of dangers in use
e. liable in strict liability for producing a product with a defect that caused injury
242. “Super Wash” liquid dishwasher detergent is sold in a box shaped like a milk carton with a bright and cheery cover.
Finding the carton under the kitchen sink, a two-year-old drinks it, suffering serious internal injuries. In a suit against
“Super Wash” the court is likely to find the producer:
a. liable in contract for express warranty of safety
b. liable for misrepresentation
c. liable in strict liability for failure to warn or for design defect
d. all of the other specific choices are likely
e. not liable because of contributory negligence by parents
243. A company packages poisoned wheat to use on farms in the Southwest to kill rats. The package states how
dangerous the product is and explains needed precautions. A Mexican farm worker takes some wheat home. Since
he cannot read English, he has no knowledge of the danger and feeds the wheat to his family. Two children die. In
a liability suit against the poisoned wheat producer, the worker likely will likely:
a. lose; he used the product improperly
b. lose; the warning of the dangers was adequate
c. lose; he contributed his negligence by not asking if the product was safe to eat
d. win; the warning was not adequate given the market where the product was distributed
e. win; market share liability
244. Retired pesticide workers develop brain tumors. Evidence shows all were exposed to the chemical Kudzu. Kudzu
has been around for 30 years, and this is the first sign of a problem with the product. In a lawsuit against the
producer of Kudzu, the workers will likely:
a. lose because their exposure was years ago and the statute of limitations has run out
b. lose because the injuries are associated with “ordinary diseases of life”
c. win if the manufacturer did not undertake tests to determine effects on users
d. win if the manufacturer engaged in misrepresentation
e. win based on express warranty in contract
245. Flush-O, a toilet cleaner, states clearly on its package that it is poison. Flush-O’s cap is easy to remove. A small
child opens a bottle left in a bathroom cabinet, drinks some Flush-O, and is injured. If the child’s parents sue the
makers of Flush-O, Flush-O is likely to:
a. lose because of express warranty of safety
b. lose because of unknown hazards
c. lose because of failure to warn or design defect
d. win because of assumption of the risk
e. win because of contributory negligence by the parents
246. Green bought a scoop attachment for the front of his tractor that could be used to scoop up grain for his farm
animals. After a snow, Green used the tractor to clear his driveway. Because of the cold, the scoop snapped-off
and injured Green. In a suit against the maker, Green will likely:
a. lose because of assumption of the risk
b. lose because of contributory negligence
c. lose because of improper use
d. win on basis of design defect
e. win on basis of manufacturer’s warranty under the Federal Trade Commission Act
247. “No Gordo” is a common artificial sweetener. Researchers find it is responsible for cancer of the liver in some
people. A person with liver cancer, who has eaten products containing “No Gordo” for years, wants to sue
manufacturers who used the sweetener. In this case:
a. there is no one to sue since “No Gordo” is not patented and is used in many products
b. there is an assumption of the risk by consumers of such chemical products, so there is no liability
c. he may sue in strict liability for unknown hazards against all makers of “No Gordo”
d. there may be a suit in negligence against all makers of “No Gordo” for failure to adequately test the product
e. there may be a suit for intentional liability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
248. Glasgow was electrocuted and died when he turned on his new television set. His family sued the TV maker,
claiming design defect. The family will likely:
a. win because the product was defective
b. win because such products have express warranties against such accidents
c. lose if the product used the normal wall plug design found successful in the overwhelming majority of such
products
d. lose on the basis of product misuse
e. lose on the basis of sophisticated user
249. Coch suffered from painful arthritis. Dr. Brooke prescribed an FDA-approved drug made by Sterling that was
known to help treat this disease. Sterling knew the drug could cause vision problems and warned doctors about this.
Brooke warned Coch of the possible side effects of the drug. After three year’s use, Coch began to suffer blurred
vision, so Brooke stopped prescribing the medication. Later Coch went blind, probably from the drug. Coch sued
the doctor and the drug company. in this case a court would probably:
a. hold Dr. Brooke and Sterling drug and FDA liable
b. hold Dr. Brooke and Sterling drug liable
c. hold Dr. Brooke liable
d. hold Sterling drug company liable
e. find no liability due to assumption of risk for unavoidably dangerous product
250. McKenzie worked in a service station. Changing a customer‘s tire, he over-inflated it, causing it to explode. This
severely injured his left hand. Neither the tire nor the rim was found to be defective. In a lawsuit against the tire
manufacturer McKenzie will likely:
a. lose due to product abuse
b. win under a strict liability or a negligence standard
c. lose under strict liability but win under negligence
d. win due to implied warranty of safety
e. lose due to assumption of the risk
251. “Big Red” is a popular car. The dash board is covered with little steel studs. In an accident, Betty, sitting next to her
boyfriend and not wearing a seat belt, smashes her face on the dash board. The steel studs make the injuries
worse. Her boyfriend is at fault in the accident. Betty sues the maker of “Big Red” for injuries. She is likely to:
a. win; the manufacturer did not exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable dangers
b. win; car producers are held strictly liable for injuries suffered by accident victims
c. lose; assumption of the risk in being in a car
d. lose; assumption of risk by not wearing a seat belt
e. lose; auto makers are not responsible for injuries incurred in accidents that are the fault of a driver
252. Chuck eats two pounds of potato chips a day for 20 years. He becomes obese and dies from high blood pressure at
age thirty. Doctors attribute his death to consumption of the chips. In a suit against the chip makers, Chuck’s heirs
will probably:
a. lose because of Chuck’s assumption of risky behavior
b. lose because the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture had certified the chips as safe to eat
c. lose because of lack of warranty
d. win because of the failure to warn consumers of dangers of such use
e. win because of implied warranty of safety of food products