ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 7
STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
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
7-2A. Design defect
The jury returned a verdict in favor of McCathern and awarded damages totaling more than $7.6
million. An intermediate state appellate court affirmed, and Toyota appealed to the state
supreme court, which upheld the lower court’s decision. The state supreme court applied, in the
context of a product liability suit involving a design defect, the “consumer expectations” test.
Under that test, a product is deemed defective if it is more dangerous than an ordinary
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 7
7-3A. Failure to warn
After the trial, the jury returned a verdict for Bresnahan. Chrysler appealed. The state
intermediate appellate court affirmed the verdict in Bresnahan’s favor, holding that the car was
defective due to Chrysler’s failure to provide a warning to avoid driving close to the steering
wheel. The appellate court explained that “the air bag on plaintiff’s car, like those on other cars,
7-4A. Product liability
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Buonanno appealed. The
Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case
for a trial. The state supreme court held that a manufacturer or seller of a component part of a
defective final product may be liable to the ultimate user. The court cited the Restatement
(Third) of Torts: Products Liability. Regarding Colmar, there may be liability if there was
“substantial participation” on its part “in the integration of the component into the design of the
product,” the “integration” causes the product to be defective, and the defect causes harm.
7-5A. Liability to third parties
The court granted the motion to dismiss. The Stegemollers appealed to the Indiana Supreme
Court, which held that the defendants could be liable to Ramona as a bystander and directed
the lower court to reinstate the complaint. The state supreme court pointed out that under an
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 7 B-3
7-6A. Product liability
Brass Eagle filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, finding that the gun
did not malfunction and performed exactly as Clark and Rico expected. The court also
determined that Clark and Rico appreciated the danger of using the guns without protective
eyewear. Clark appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the
lower court. The state supreme court concluded that “Clark offered no proof that the paintball
gun used in the incident failed to function as expected . * * * Clark testified that he was aware
7-7A. Design defect
A product is defective in design when it is in a defective condition that renders it unreasonably
dangerous. A product is unreasonably dangerous when it is dangerous to an extent beyond that
which the ordinary and reasonable buyer, consumer, or user would contemplate. Liability can be
assessed on this basis if the defect causes an injury to one of these individuals. As stated in the
facts, cigarettes contain tar and other carcinogens. These are the causal link between smoking
7–8A. Defenses to product liability
To establish a strict product liability claim, a plaintiff must show among other things that the
product was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the user. A product can be
defective and unreasonably dangerous if it is not equipped with necessary safety features.
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 7
But a product is not defective simply because it does not have all the optional safety
features that could be included. For example, a bicycle is safer when it is equipped with lights,
but a bicycle not so equipped is not defective and unreasonably dangerous.
Textron could argue that the same reasoning could be applied here: the golf car was not
7-9A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The California Supreme Court held that Navegar could not be held negligent for
making and selling the TEC/DC-9. The court pointed out that “[t]o prevail on their negligence
claim, plaintiffs must show that Navegar owed them a legal duty, that it breached the duty, and
2. An answer to this question might depend on a weighing of the following factors
considered in some negligence cases to find an exception to the general requirement of duty:
3. Most Americans would probably agree that policy decisions regarding the liability of
gun manufacturers should be made by the legislative branch, which has the job of making the
law. In part, this may be in consideration of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 7 B-5