Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1. The extreme risk of an activity is a primary basis for imposing strict
liability.
1. Under the doctrine of strict liability, liability is imposed strictly according
to fault.
1. One of the requirements for a suit based on strict liability is a failure to
exercise due care.
1. One characteristic of an abnormally dangerous activity is that it involves
an extreme risk.
1. A person who keeps a wild animal is always strictly liable for any harm
that the animal inflicts.
1. One requirement for a product liability suit based on negligence is a
failure to exercise reasonable care.
1. A product liability action may be based on warranty theories.
1. A product liability action based on negligence does not require the
plaintiff and the defendant to be in privity of contract.
1. A manufacturer cannot be liable in product liability for intentionally
misrepresenting the character of quality of goods.
1. The majority of states limit the application of strict product liability
theory to situations involving personal injuries.
1. A public policy underlying the imposition of strict product liability is that
consumers should be protected against unsafe products.
1. Sellers or lessors are liable only for products that are
reasonably
dangerous.
1. An action in strict product liability requires that the product
not
be in a
defective condition when the defendant sells it.
1. An action in strict product liability requires that the defendant fail to
exercise reasonable care.
1. To succeed in a strict product liability suit, an injured plaintiff must
show that a product’s defect was the proximate cause of the injury.
1. The types of product defects that have traditionally been recognized in
product liability law include inadequate warnings.
1. To succeed in a strict product liability suit, an injured plaintiff must be
more than a mere bystander.
1. Many jurisdictions will consider the negligent actions of both the plaintiff
and the defendant when apportioning liability in a product liability action.
1. A manufacturer is not liable in strict product liability for injuries caused
by commonly known dangers.
1. A statute of limitation may restrict the time within which an action in
product liability may be brought.
1. Earth Movers, Inc., uses dynamite to prepare land for highway projects.
Strict liability is imposed on this activity because
a. Earth Movers is a corporation.
b. the activity is inherently negligent.
c. the activity is of a dangerous nature.
d. the government pays for highway construction.
1. Eva owns Fast-Rate Salvage, a demolition company. A demolition by a
Fast-Rate crew injures Glen, a passerby. Under the theory of strict li-
ability, Eva must pay for Glen’s injury
a. only if Glen’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
b only if Glen’s injury was reasonably foreseeable.
c. only if the Fast-Rate crew was at fault.
d. whether or not the Fast-Rate crew was at fault.
1. GR8 Skates Company makes and sells a pair of skates to Homer. GR8
fails to exercise “due care” to make the skates safe, and Homer is
injured as a result. GR8 is most likely liable for
a. assumption of risk.
b. knowledgeable use.
c. negligence.
d. foreseeable misuse.
1. Ceramic Tile Company designs and makes floor tiles. In a product
liability suit based on negligence, Ceramic could be liable for violating
its duty of care with respect to
a. neither the design nor the making of the tiles.
b. the design and the making of the tiles.
c. the design of the tiles only.
d. the making of the tiles only.
1. Farm Equip, Inc., makes farming machinery. Gail discovers that her
Farm Equip tractor is defective and sues the maker for product liability
based on negligence. To win, Gail must show that
a. Farm Equip sold the tractor to Gail.
b. Gail knew and appreciated the risk caused by the defect.
c. Gail suffered an injury caused by the defect.
d. the “defect” was a commonly known danger.
1. Yard Tool Company makes and leases a backhoe to Zack. Due to a
defect attributable to Yard Tool’s negligence, Zack is injured in an
accident in which his neighbor Aron is also hurt. In a product liability
suit based on negligence, Yard Tool may be liable to
a. Aron only.
b. no one.
c. Zack and Aron.
d. Zack only.
1. Reilly makes a fraudulent misrepresentation to Sonny, a consumer, who
buys Reilly’s product. In using the product, Sonny suffers an injury. To
serve as a basis for recovery, the misrepresentation must concern
a. a material fact.
b. a national fact.
c. an ethereal fact.
d. a scientific fact.
1. Ida intentionally mislabels her product in order to increase sales. Jay, a
consumer, buys Ida’s product. In using it, Jay suffers an injury. To
recover for the injury on the basis of the misrepresentation, Jay must
a. assume the risk of the misrepresentation.
b. ignore the misrepresentation.
c. not be influenced by the misrepresentation .
d. rely on the misrepresentation.
1. Heat Wave, Inc., makes portable heaters. To pay its liability for injuries
to consumers harmed by defective heaters, Heat Wave can pass the
costs on to
a. consumers in the form of higher prices.
b. other manufacturers of heaters on a theory of market share
liability.
c. suppliers in the form of “reverse kickbacks.”
d the government in the form of direct payments.
1. Medic Equip, Inc., makes medical devices. Naomi is injured while using
a Medic pacemaker and sues the maker for product liability based on
strict liability. To win, Naomi must show that
a. Medic did not use due care with respect to the pacemaker.
b. Naomi was in privity of contract with Medic.
c. Medic misrepresented a material fact on which Naomi relied.
d. none of the choices.
1. Kitchen Kutters Corporation (KKC) makes kitchen knives and other
consumer products. KKC could be liable for a design defect if there is
a foreseeable risk of harm posed by a product and
a. the omission of a warning renders the product not reasonably
safe.
b. there is a lack of care in making of the product.
c. there is a reasonable alternative design.
d. there is not a reasonable alternative design.
1. Welding Systems, Inc. (WSI), makes welding torches, masks, and
related products. A WSI product may be unreasonably dangerous due
to
a. a defect in its design.
b. the expectations of its seller.
c. the intentions of its distributor.
d. the method of accounting of its maker.
1. Green Glass Corporation makes glass bottles for food and beverage
makers to package their products for wholesale distribution and retail
sale. Liability may be imposed on Green Glass based on
a. the “reasonableness” of the manufacturer’s quality control efforts.
b. the type of the manufacturer’s insurance coverage.
c. a manufacturing defect.
d. the opinion and testimony of non-experts.
1. Safe-T-Made Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for
electronic devices. Rowena files a product liability suit against Safe-Rite,
alleging a warning defect. Under the Restatement (Third) of
Torts: Products Liability, in deciding whether to hold Safe-T-
Made liable, the court may consider
a. the expectations of the seller.
b. the identities of the company’s owner.
c. the intentions of the manufacturer.
d. the characteristics of expected users.
1. Pharma Company, Quitox Corporation, and Renal, Inc., are drug
makers. Med Sales Company and National OTC, Inc., are drug distribu-
tors. In a suit against all of these parties in which market-share liability
is imposed, most likely to be liable are
a. neither the distributors nor the makers.
b. the distributors and the makers.
c. the distributors only.
d. the makers only.
1. Rhiana is shopping in Seth’s Food Store when a bottle of Truly Bubbly
Cola explodes, injuring her. Rhiana files a suit against Truly Bubbly,
from whom she can recover only if she can show that she
a. did not assume the risk of the exploding bottle.
b. intended to buy the exploding bottle.
c. used due care in shopping in the store.
d. was injured due to a defect in the product.
1. Fun Toyz Corporation makes skateboards, which it sells to consumers,
including Gitana. Gitana is injured due to a defect in the board that
causes an accident in which Haley, a bystander, is also injured. In a
product liability suit based on strict product liability, Fun Toyz may be
liable to
a. Gitana and Haley.
b. Gitana only.
c. Haley only.
d. no one.
1. Grady, an obese individual, files a suit against Fry Fast Food
Corporation (FFFC), alleging that FFFC’s food is unhealthy because, as
Grady knows, it contains high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat.
Grady is most likely to
a. lose, because Grady assumed the risk when he bought FFFC’s
food.
b. lose, because Grady knows of the food’s unhealthiness.
c. win, because FFFC’s food poses an unhealthy risk to Grady.
d. win, because Grady knows of the food’s unhealthiness.
1. Mixing Equipment, Inc. (MEI), makes paint-mixing equipment. Nia is
injured by a defective MEI mixer. A statute restricts the time within
which, after Nia is injured, she may file a product liability suit. This is a
statute of
a. limitations.
b. preemption.
c. repose.
d. suspension.
1. Air Navigation, Inc., makes aviation guidance systems. Ollie is injured in
a crash caused by a defective Air Navigation product. A statute restricts
the time within which Ollie may file a product liability suit against Air
Navigation regardless of when he was injured. This is a statute of
a. limitations.
b. preemption.
c. repose.
d. suspension.
1. Delta Company makes and sells table saws, which are designed to be
safe if used properly. Erin buys a Delta saw and lends it to her
neighbor Frank. To reach a toolbox on a high shelf in his garage,
Frank props the saw at an angle against a cabinet and climbs onto the
saw. Frank loses his footing, slips off the saw, falls on the blade, and
is injured. He files a product liability suit against Delta, on the ground
of negligence. On what basis could Delta prevail?
1. Mighty Fine Company makes a surfboard, which it sells to Nature
Sports Equipment (NSE), a distributor. NSE sells the board to Ocean
Store, where Pat buys it. Pat gives it to Quinn, who suffers an injury
due a defect in the board. If Mighty Fine, NSE, and Ocean Store were
not negligent, can they be liable to Quinn for the injury? If so, how
what basis, and for what reasons?
1.#
