1
Chapter 7
Strict Liability and Product Liability
N.B.: TYPE indicates that a question is new, modified, or unchanged, as follows.
N A question new to this edition of the Test Bank.
+ A question modified from the previous edition of the Test Bank.
= A question included in the previous edition of the Test Bank.
TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONS
B1. The extreme risk of an activity is a defense against imposing strict liability.
B2. People who keep domestic animals are strictly liable for any harm inflicted by
the animals.
B3. Misrepresentation in an ad is enough to show an intent to induce the reliance of
anyone who may use the product.
B4. Manufacturers must use due care in selecting the materials to be used in a
product.
2 TEST BANK B—UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
B5. A product liability action based on negligence does not require privity of
contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant-manufacturer.
B6. Manufacturers must use due care in inspecting and testing any purchased
components used in a product.
B7. The law imposes strict liability as a matter of public policy based in part on the
assumption that manufacturers can better bear the costs associated with
injuries caused by their products.
B8. Because many products cannot be made entirely safe for all uses, sellers or
lessors are liable only for products that are unreasonably dangerous.
B9. An action in strict product liability requires that a product be in a defective
condition caused by its purchaser.
B10. The doctrine of strict liability can be applied to sellers of goods, including
manufacturers, but not distributors.
B11. The types of product defects that have traditionally been recognized in product
liability law include manufacturing defects.
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND STRICT LIABILITY 3
B12. A manufacturing defect is a departure from a product unit’s design
specifications that results in products that are physically flawed.
B13. To successfully assert a design defect, a plaintiff has to show that no
reasonable alternative design was available.
B14. Under a theory of market-share liability, a manufacturer sells “shares” of its
potential strict liability and thereby spreads the risk and the cost.
B15. There is a duty to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known.
B16. Sellers are required to take precautions against every conceivable misuse of a
product.
B17. Generally, a seller must warn those who purchase its product of the harm that
can result from the foreseeable misuse of the product.
B18. Generally, the strict liability of manufactures and other sellers does not extend
to injured bystanders.
4 TEST BANK B—UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
B19. An injured party may sue only the manufacturer of defective products that are
subject to comprehensive federal regulatory schemes.
B20. Statutes of repose places outer times limit on product liability actions.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
B1. Alice is injured when she is struck by debris floating on her property, which was
flooded by a breach of Big R Ranch’s reservoir. The rule that a person who
engages in certain activities may be liable under the doctrine of strict liability for
any harm that results was established by
a. private parties engaged in negotiation.
b. the U.S. Congress.
c a British court.
d. a U.S. court.
B2. Roadbuilders, Inc., uses dynamite in its operations. Sky-Hi Fireworx, Inc.,
stores explosives in its warehouses. Most likely liable under the doctrine of
strict liability for any injury caused by an abnormally dangerous activity will be
a. none of the choices.
b. Roadbuilders and Sky-Hi.
c. Roadbuilders only.
d. Sky-Hi only.
B3. Luke is playing a video game on a defective disk that melts in his game player,
starting a fire that injures his hands. Luke files a suit against Mystic Maze, Inc.,
the game’s maker under the doctrine off strict liability. A significant application
of this doctrine is in the area of
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND STRICT LIABILITY 5
a. cyber torts.
b. intentional torts.
c. product liability.
d. unintentional torts.
B4. Soda Bubbles Corporation makes and sells soft drinks. Talia buys and drinks a
Soda Bubbles beverage, which proves defective and injures her. One
justification for holding Soda Bubbles strictly liable for the harm caused to Talia
by its defective product is that
a. Soda Bubbles is making a profit from its activities.
b. Talia is a person, not a business.
c. making and selling products are abnormally dangerous activities.
d. Soda Bubbles and Talia are in privity.
B5. Street Bikes, Inc., makes and sells a bicycle to Theo. Street Bikes fails to
exercise “due care” to make the bicycle safe, however, and Theo is injured as a
result. Street Bikes is most likely liable for
a. market-share liability.
b. none of the choices.
c. negligence.
d. product misuse.
B6. Island Breeze Company designs and makes desk, window, and ceiling fans. In
a product liability suit based on negligence, Island Breeze could be liable for
violating its duty of care with respect to all of the following except
a. the design of the fans.
b. the production process used to make the fans.
c. the warnings on the labels of the fans.
d. a consumer’s unforeseeable misuse of a fan.
6 TEST BANK B—UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
B7. Forest & Field Company makes and leases a backhoe to Gallagher. Due to a
defect attributable to Forest & Field’s negligence, Gallagher is injured in an
accident in which his neighbor Helga is also hurt. In a product liability suit
based on negligence, Forest & Field may be liable to
a. Gallagher only.
b. no one.
c. Gallagher and Helga.
d. Helga only.
B8. Garden Tool Company makes chain saws. Hadrian is injured while using a
Garden Tool saw and sues the company for product liability based on neg-
ligence. To win, Hadrian must show that
a. Garden Tool did not use due care with respect to the trimmer.
b. Garden Tool used puffery in its advertising.
c. Hadrian was not experienced in the use of trimmers.
d. Hadrian was in privity with Garden Tool.
B9. Lipstik, Inc. makes cosmetics. Lipstik intentionally mislabels its packaged
products to conceal a defect. Trusting and relying on the mislabeling, Mikayla
buys a Lipstik product and suffers an injury. Lipstik is most likely liable for
a. product misuse.
b. fraud.
c. privity.
d. puffery.
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND STRICT LIABILITY 7
B10. Good Cookin’ Products Company makes heat convection ovens. Heidi
discovers that her Good Cookin’ oven is defective and sues the maker for
product liability based on strict liability. To win, Heidi must show that she
a. bought the oven from Good Cookin’.
b. did not misuse the oven.
c. suffered an injury caused by the defect.
d. did not know of the defect.
B11. Sea & Surf Corporation makes sailboards, which are bought and distributed by
Tropical Marketing Company to UV Sports Stores, Inc., which sells them to
consumers. Wen is injured while using a Sea & Surf board that he bought from
UV Sports. In a product liability suit based on strict liability, Wen may recover
from
a. Sea & Surf only.
b. Sea & Surf, Tropical Marketing, or UV Sports.
c. UV Sports only.
d. none of the choices.
B12. ClearCall Corporation makes phones, which are sold to consumers by
DefDeals stores. Erna files a product liability suit against ClearCall, alleging a
design defect. In deciding whether to hold ClearCall liable, the court may
consider
a. Erna’s intended use for the phone.
b. DefDeals’ method of accounting.
c. ClearCall’s quality control efforts.
d. an available alternative design.
B13. Fleet Feet Corporation makes athletic shoes. Gloria, a marathoner, files a
product liability suit against Fleet Feet, alleging a design defect. In deciding
whether to hold Fleet Feet liable, the court may consider an alternative design’s
8 TEST BANK B—UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
a. popularity among industrial designers and consumers.
b. weight and heft.
c. aesthetics.
d. advantages and disadvantages.
B14. MedBeat Inc., makes medical devices, including heart pacemakers. Nina, a
heart patient, files a product liability suit against MedBeat, alleging a warning
defect with respect to its pacemaker. In deciding whether to hold MedBeat
liable, the court may consider whether there is a foreseeable risk of harm
posed by the pacemaker and
a. the omission of a warning renders the pacemaker not reasonably safe.
b. there is a reasonable alternative design.
c. MedBeat did not use due care in making the pacemaker.
d. Nina lacks insurance coverage.
B15. SurgeStop Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for electronic
devices. Rollo files a product liability suit against SurgeStop, alleging a warning
defect. In deciding whether to hold SurgeStop liable, the court may consider
a. consumers’ general lack of desire to read the product’s warnings.
b. the plaintiff’s specific lack of desire to read the product warnings.
c. the obvious risks of other products.
d. the obvious risks of this product.
B16. BioChem Corporation, ChemCo Company, and DexLabs Inc. make and
distribute toxic chemicals. In a product-liability suit against all of these parties,
the court is most likely to impose market-share liability if it cannot be proved
which of the parties
a. was in privity with the injured plaintiff.
b. exercised the least amount of due care in making the product.
c. supplied the particular product that caused the injury.
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND STRICT LIABILITY 9
d. holds the largest share of the market for the product.
B17. Fine Motor Company buys gas pedals and other parts from General Mechanix, Inc.,
and puts them in its vehicles without changing their composition. If the pedals or other
parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects are
a. Fine Motor only.
b. no one.
c. Fine Motor and General Mechanix.
d. General Mechanix only.
B18. The brakes on a train owned by Rolling Stock Railway Inc. malfunction. The
train rolls towards maintenance workers on the tracks. Everyone gets out of the
way except Sid, who wants to show off. The train hits Sid, who sues Train
Components, Inc., the brakes’ manufacturer. Train Components can raise the
defense of
a. a component-part manufacturer.
b. assumption of risk.
c. privity.
d. product misuse.
B19. Stan, an air-conditioning and heating technician, files a suit against Temp-Set
Corporation, alleging that its thermostats are unreasonably dangerous due to
the possibility of electrical shock. Temp-Set’s best defense is most likely
a. assumption of risk.
b. knowledgeable user.
c. commonly known danger.
d. none of the choices.
10 TEST BANK B—UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
B20. Garage Magic, Inc., contracts for the sale of a certain number of garage door
openers to Home & Yard Hardware stores. Ian buys one of openers. The
applicable statute of limitations prescribes a period of four years. To bring a
product liability claim against Garage Magic, Ian must file a suit within four
years of
a. Ian’s discovery of an injury caused by the opener.
b. Garage Magic’s sale of the opener to Home & Yard.
c. Garage Magic’s design of the opener.
d. Home & Yard’s sale of the opener to Ian.
ESSAY QUESTIONS
B1. Vogel bought a phone made by WiFi Communications, Inc. Three months later,
after recharging the battery through a power jack, Vogel picked up the phone
only to have it ignite in his hand. Suffering a severe burn, Vogel filed a suit
against WiFi, alleging that a design defect in the phone weakened the
connection between the power jack and the motherboard, causing the wiring to
overheat and creating an unreasonable safety hazard. Could Vogel succeed on
his strict product liability claim? Explain.
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND STRICT LIABILITY 11
B2. The Prosthetic Legs and Arms Act (PLAA) sets up a no-fault compensation
program for persons injured through the use of medical prostheses. The PLAA
protects prosthesis makers from liability for unavoidable side effects. When
Quint is injured in an auto accident, his physician prescribes and fits him for a
certain prosthetic. When Quint suffers injuries from its use, he, files a suit
against Replacement Limbs LLC, the maker of the prosthetic, alleging strict
product liability. Is there a defense that Replacement Limbs might successfully
assert in this case? If so, what is it, and why?