978-0077733711 Chapter 20 Solution Manual

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

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

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

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

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

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

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.