CHAPTER 7
STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
ANSWERS TO CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
IN THE FEATURE
MANAGERIAL STRATEGY—BUSINESS QUESTIONS
1. To protect themselves, manufacturers have been forced to include lengthy safety
warnings for their products. What is the downside of such behavior? When products
2. Does a manufacturer have to create safety warnings for every product? Why or
person can be injured if she or he tries to go through a door without opening it.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
AT THE ENDS OF THE CASES
CASE 7.1—LEGAL REASONING QUESTIONS
1. According to the plaintiffs, what was the defect of the product at the center of this
case? According to the defendant, why was this not a defect? The Arctic Cat 660 snow-
mobile at the center of this case was equipped with an alarm that did not sound the entire time
the vehicle was in reverse. There was no dispute that the alarm on the 660 was “operational” at
2 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
2. How did the plaintiffs use evidence to support their claim? The plaintiffs’ presented the
testimonial evidence of two expert witnesses and the deceased operator’s widower to support
their claim.
The plaintiffs’ expert John Frackelton, an accident reconstructionist and snowmobile me-
chanic, experimented with the shift lever of an Arctic Cat 660 and confirmed that the alarm did
3. Why did the court conclude that this case should be submitted to a jury? Explain. The
court concluded that the fact the alarm was “operational” did not determine whether its operation
CASE 7.2—CRITICAL THINKING
ECONOMIC
What is the public policy expressed by the provisions of the NCVIA? In the Supreme
Court’s interpretation, the NCVIA’s program balances payment of compensation to victims
harmed by vaccines and protection of the vaccine industry from the potentially devastating costs
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY 3
POLITICAL
If the public wants to change the policy applied through the statute in this case, which
branch of the government—and at what level—should be lobbied to make the change?
Explain. The statute at the heart of this case is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of
1986 (NCVIA). The branch of the government that should be lobbied by the advocates for a
CASE 7.3—CRITICAL THINKING
LEGAL ENVIRONMENT
Could Verost succeed in an action against Nuttall alleging that the company’s failure to
maintain the forklift in a safe condition constituted negligence? Discuss. Yes, Verost
could succeed in an action against Nuttall, alleging negligence in failing to maintain the forklift in
a safe condition.
In this case, Verost was working at a facility owned by Nuttall Gear, LLC, when he was
injured in an accident involving a forklift made by Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc. In
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. Product liability
Kolchek may sue the manufacturer Great Lakes for product liability based upon negligence.
Furthermore, she may assert claims against Great Lakes and Porter, as a member of the dis–
tributive chain, for strict product liability based upon design defects associated with the spa and
inadequate warnings with respect to its use.
4 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
2A. Privity of contract
Injured consumers may bring claims sounding in product liability or strict liability against manu-
3A. Requirements
Plaintiffs in strict product liability cases must show the product was in a defective condition when
it was sold, the defendant sells or distributes such products in the ordinary course of business,
4A. Defenses
Comparative negligence allows the jury to compute the contributions of both parties to the situa–
tion. This results in the reduction or elimination of the plaintiff’s recovery, depending on the state
ANSWER TO DEBATE THIS QUESTION IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
All liability suits against tobacco companies for lung cancer should be thrown out
of court now and forever. It is difficult to believe that those who smoked in the past and those
who smoke tobacco products today didn’t or don’t know about the health dangers of
ANSWERS TO ISSUE SPOTTERS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. Rim Corporation makes tire rims that it sells to Superior Vehicles, Inc., which in–
stalls them on cars. One set of rims is defective, which an inspection would reveal.
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY 5
Superior does not inspect the rims. The car with the defective rims is sold to Town Auto
Sales, which sells the car to Uri. Soon, the car is in an accident caused by the defective
2A. Bensing Company manufactures generic drugs for the treatment of heart disease.
A federal law requires generic drug makers to use labels that are identical to the labels
on brand-name versions of the drugs. Hunter Rothfus purchased Bensing’s generic
drugs in Ohio and wants to sue Bensing for defective labeling based on its failure to
comply with Ohio state common law (rather than the federal labeling requirements). What
defense might Bensing assert to avoid liability under state law? Bensing can assert the
defense of preemption. An injured party may not be able to sue the manufacturer of defective
products that are subject to comprehensive federal regulatory schemes. If the federal govern-
ANSWERS TO BUSINESS SCENARIOS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
7-1A. Strict liability
The court agreed with the Kleins, applying the rule that “any party carrying on an ‘abnormally
dangerous activity’ is strictly liable for ensuing damages.” The court looked to the factors listed
in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 520, to determine whether the fireworks display
was abnormally dangerous. Those factors are “(a) existence of a high degree of risk of some
harm to the person, land or chattels of others; (b) likelihood that the harm that results from it will
be great; (c) inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; (d) extent to which
6 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
7–2A. Product liability
The court should rule in favor of the manufacturer, finding that the gun did not malfunction but
performed exactly as Clark and Wright expected. The court should also point out that Clark and
Wright appreciated the danger of using the guns without protective eyewear. Clark offered no
ANSWERS TO BUSINESS CASE PROBLEMS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
7–3A. Design defects
If there were any inadequacies in the warning label, they were not a substantial factor in
bringing about the injuries suffered. It was Chow’s responsibility to read the label, which covered
the factors involved in the incident. So that claim is properly dismissed. As to the claim of design
7–4A Strict product liability
No. Dobrovolny’s claim is not likely to succeed. The majority of states recognize strict product
liability. The purpose of strict product liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries resulting from
defective products are borne by the manufacturers rather than by the injured persons. The law
imposes this liability as a matter of public policy. Some state courts limit the application of the
tort theory of strict product liability to situations involving personal injuries rather than property
damage.
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY 7
7–5A. Product misuse
No, Ford could not succeed on a claim that Cheyenne had misused the seatbelt. Product mis–
use occurs when a product is used for a purpose that was not intended. This defense has been
severely limited by the courts. It is recognized as a defense only when the particular use was
7–6A. BUSINESS CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER—Product liability
Here, the accident was caused by Jett’s inattention, not by the texting device in the cab of his
truck. In a product liability case based on a design defect, the plaintiff has to prove that the
product was defective at the time it left the hands of the seller or lessor. The plaintiff must also
show that this defective condition made it “unreasonably dangerous” to the user or consumer. If
the product was delivered in a safe condition and subsequent mishandling made it harmful to
7–7A. Strict product liability
Watts might recover from Medicis in an action grounded in product liability on proven allegations
that the drug was unreasonably dangerous because Medicis failed to provide adequate
warnings of its known dangers. A product’s maker or seller is liable for products that are so de–
fective as to be unreasonably dangerous. This exists when a product is dangerous beyond the ex-
pectation of the ordinary consumer or a less dangerous alternative was economically feasible,
8 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
7–8A. Strict product liability
No, Lesnick could not succeed on a theory of product liability against the sellers of the lifted
pick-up truck by arguing that they failed to warn him of the risk of a lifted vehicle. A product may
be deemed defective because of inadequate warnings. But the defect and its risks must be fore–
seeable—that is, the seller must know, or have reason to know, of the defect and its risks.
Liability would exist if a knowledgeable seller withheld this information from its customers.
In this problem, Duval Ford sold a new Ford F–250 pick-up truck to Sweat. Sweat had
Duval install a lift kit on the truck, and also modified the suspension system and replaced the
tires. Later, through Burkins Chevrolet, Sweat sold the truck to Lesnick. Sweat had had no
7-9A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS—Dangerous products
(a) The state supreme court held that the “ordinary consumer of a lighter, such as the
Aim N Flame here, is an adult—the typical user and purchaser. Therefore, the expectations re-
garding the Aim N Flame’s use and safety must be viewed from the point of view of the adult
consumer.” The court held that the lighter met this test. “The purpose of a lighter, such as the
Aim N Flame, is to produce a flame. Clearly then, the ordinary consumer would expect that,
CHAPTER 7: STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY 9
(b) The court issued a summary judgment in Scripto’s favor, but on Calles’s appeal, a
state intermediate appellate court reversed this judgment, and Scripto appealed to the Illinois
ANSWERS TO LEGAL GROUP ACTIVITY QUESTIONS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
7–10A. Product liability
(a) The court should grant the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment and dis-
miss D’Auguste’s complaint. There is no proof as to whether the crack in the heel housing was
substantial enough to have caused D’Auguste’s left ski to come off, whether the crack existed
(b) The court should deny the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment and allow
D’Auguste’s claim to proceed. Despite the lack of proof with respect to the cracked heel housing
noted in the previous answer, D’Auguste could still shoe that there was a defect in the binding