Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 20 - Product Liability
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES:
1. No. The Illinois Court of Appeals held that an express warranty was created when the seller
of the used car stated that the car was in “good mechanical condition.” The statement was an
2. There was an express warranty. The fact that Forbes did not read the warranty does not
3. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirms the lower court's grant of summary judgment to
defendant CarMax. The court holds that a series of defects in the used car sold by CarMax to
the plaintiffs did not amount to a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. There
4. The reasonable expectation test and the foreign-natural test were both available, but the court
5. The Bakos lost on both claims. Regarding the implied warranty of merchantability claim, the
stain did what it was supposed to do by coloring the wood. There was no need to warn of the
dangers of combining lacquer-based stains with polyurethane sealants, as the Bakos did not
6. No. A federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ford. The court observed
that in negligent design cases, the focus is on whether the manufacturer failed to take into
account reasonably foreseeable risks of harm. According to the court, Ford could not be
20-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 20 - Product Liability
7. No. The Seventh Circuit observed that a reasonable jury could conclude that the mower was
defective and a proximate cause of Malen’s injuries. Malin’s evidence, presented through an
expert witness, suggested that two key wires that should have been connected perhaps never
8. To win his strict liability claim, Simo needed to prove that the vehicle was both defective and
unreasonably dangerous as of the time it left Mitsubishi’s hands, that Mitsubishi was a seller
dangerous, he also needed to prove that a reasonable alternative design was available but not
utilized by Mitsubishi. He proved this largely through the testimony of an expert witness.
By proving the elements of the strict liability claim, Simo would become entitled to
9. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Goodin, 882 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. 2005). The Supreme Court of
Points for Discussion: Ask why the intermediate appellate court held to the contrary on the
privity issue. (Because of a footnote in an earlier Supreme Court decision--a footnote that
was dictum and that the Supreme Court reconsiders in this case.) What version of § 2-318
does Indiana have? (Alternative A.) Why doesn't that settle the issue here? (Because,
10. The Supreme Court of Indiana held that the trial court was correct in granting summary
20-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 20 - Product Liability
judgment in favor of the defendants on each of the four claims pleaded by the plaintiffs. The
court indicated that even assuming for the sake of argument that the medicine cup was not fit
for ordinary purposes or for any particular purposes that might otherwise be relevant, the
implied warranty claims failed for the same reason that the negligent design and strict
11. The portion of the capitalized language beginning with "IT MAKES NO..." and ending with
"OR OTHERWISE" is an attempted disclaimer of (among other things) the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness. The remainder of the capitalized statement is the
Martin's argument for negating the disclaimer and the remedy limitation is that each is
unconscionable. Section 2-719(3) specifically allows such claims in the case of remedy
limitations, and innumerable courts have allowed such claims for disclaimers as well. In
12. Croskey v. BMW of North America, Inc., 532 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2008). Yes. The district court
erred in preventing Croskey from admitting evidence from prior similar incidents in order to
prove a negligent design claim. “[U]nder Michigan law, a plaintiff must show that the product
was ‘not reasonably safe for its foreseeable uses’ and that a ‘risk-utility analysis’ favored a
(1) that the severity of the injury was foreseeable by the manufacturer;
(2) that the likelihood of the occurrence of the injury was foreseeable by the manufacturer
at the time of distribution of the product;
20-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 20 - Product Liability
(3) that there was a reasonable alternative design available;
The court held under this theory, admitting evidence of substantially similar incidents is not
13. Traditionally, product misuse was a complete defense for the defendant in a strict liability
case. Under comparative fault, however, a common approach to product misuse is to make it
14. The two possible tests are the foreign-natural test and reasonable expectations of the
consumer test. The modern trend is to adopt the latter test, which in this case would seem to
15. The Minnesota Supreme Court refused to let that state's privity provision, which resembles
version C of § 2-318, allow the recovery of lost profits by parties who did not purchase goods
16. No. As the text states, goods need not be perfect to be merchantable. Here, the car had been
driven for 33 months and for over 75,000 miles without a serious problem. The rust thus did
17. Concerning the implied warranty of merchantability claim, Ford argued that it should be
dismissed as time-barred under the four-year-statute of limitations governing breach of
18. In adopting the Restatement (Third) approach, the court held that the plaintiff in a design
defect case must prove that “the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have
been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or
20-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 20 - Product Liability
19. Yes to both. Under a strict liability theory, GM could be held liable even though nothing it did
or failed to do caused Mr. Babcock’s truck to leave the highway and strike a tree. The
20. The court answered with the following response:
“[N]one of the conditions stated in the question precludes imposition of liability, but
neither are they together enough to establish liability; proof of an available “safer
VI. ANSWER TO ONLINE RESEARCH PROBLEM:
20-5
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
