Question 1

Chem Company and Dura Plastics Inc. make and distribute a certain toxic chemical that is discovered in the water supply of the county in which their plants are located. In a product liability suit against both makers, market-share liability may be imposed on

Accepted Answer

Market-share liability allows the burden of proving causation to be shifted to the defendants. In cases where the actual manufacturer of a product causing harm cannot be identified, market-share liability distributes liability among the producers based on their market share of the product. Therefore, both parties could be held liable based on their market share of the toxic chemical.

Question 2

Bright n' Clean Company makes shampoo and other hair care products. Cub is injured by the use of a Bright n' Clean product and sues the company for product liability based on negligence. To win, Cub must show that

Accepted Answer

To prove product liability based on negligence, the plaintiff must show that the company failed to use due care in making the product. The other choices are not relevant in this case.

Question 3

Sea Wind Corporation makes boats. Theresa files a product liability suit against Sea Wind, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider an alternative design's

Accepted Answer

The court may consider the effect of an alternative design on Sea Wind's boat to determine if the design defect could have been avoided or mitigated, which is relevant in a product liability case.

Question 4

Fit Corporation makes running shoes. Gaby, a marathoner, files a product liability suit against Fit, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the company liable, the court may consider an alternative design's

Accepted Answer

The court may consider an alternative design's advantages and disadvantages in order to determine whether a design defect exists. The popularity among consumers, weight and heft, and aesthetics may not be relevant factors in determining liability for a design defect.

Question 5

Touch Screens Inc. makes and markets tablets. When problems develop with Touch products or sales, the company may be liable in product liability for any of the following except

Accepted Answer

An ineffective marketing plan does not fall under the category of product liability as it does not involve any defects with the product itself.

Question 6

Cold Play Corporation makes snowmobiles. Dale is injured when a defect unexpectedly accelerates the Cold Play vehicle he is driving, and he is thrown off. Esty, a hiker standing in the path of the unmanned vehicle, is struck and injured. In a suit based on strict product liability, Cold Play may be liable to

Accepted Answer

Strict product liability holds manufacturers responsible for defects in their products, regardless of whether they were negligent. In this case, Cold Play Corporation may be held liable for the defect in their snowmobile that caused Dale's injuries and also for the injuries to Esty, who was struck by the unmanned vehicle.

Question 7

EZ Co-op Inc. sells Fill-Up cattle feed to ranchers. Gina buys and feeds Fill-Up to her herd. The feed is poisoned. Gina sues EZ for product liability based on negligence. To win, Gina must show

Accepted Answer

C) Gina must demonstrate that the poisoned feed caused her damage to win a product liability case based on negligence. This involves proving that the feed directly resulted in harm to her cattle, which is a key element in negligence claims.

Question 8

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes soft drinks. Toby drinks a Soda beverage, which proves defective and injures him. One justification for holding Soda strictly liable for the harm caused to Toby is that

Accepted Answer

The justification for holding Soda strictly liable is that Soda, as the manufacturer, is in a better position than Toby, the consumer, to bear the cost of Toby's injury. This is because Soda can spread the cost of potential injuries across all of their products and consumers, while Toby, as an individual consumer, cannot bear the cost of the injury alone.

Question 9

Bounce Company makes trampolines and other gym equipment. Chet files a product liability suit against Bounce, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold Bounce liable, the court may consider that a manufacturer has no duty to warn about risks that are

Accepted Answer

A manufacturer has no duty to warn about risks that are obvious.

Question 10

Bedding Plus Inc. makes a pillow that Comfort Stuff sells to Demi. Bedding fails to exercise "due care," and Demi is injured by toxic material used as fill in the pillow. Comfort Stuff is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

Comfort Stuff can be held liable for negligence for failing to exercise reasonable care in selecting a reliable supplier for the pillow's fill material. The fact that they sold the pillow to Demi implies that they endorsed the product and deceived her into believing that it was safe to use. Therefore, Comfort Stuff can be held liable for damages resulting from their negligence.

Question 11

Recharge Corporation makes batteries. Sol is injured when the Recharge battery in his phone bursts into flame. In Sol's product liability suit against the maker, alleging a design defect, the court may consider

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit alleging a design defect, the court may consider an available alternative design. This means that the court will examine whether there was a feasible, safer alternative design that Recharge could have used, which would have prevented the battery from bursting into flame. The other options listed (A, B, and C) are not relevant to determining whether there was a design defect in the battery.

Question 12

Airsoft, Inc. makes toys. Airsoft intentionally mislabels its packaged products to conceal a defect. Trusting and relying on the mislabeling, Bing buys an Airsoft product and suffers an injury. Airsoft is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

Airsoft intentionally mislabeled its packaged products to conceal a defect, which constitutes fraud. Bing relied on the mislabeling and suffered an injury, making Airsoft liable for their fraudulent actions. None of the other options, such as product misuse, privity of contract, or comparative negligence, are relevant in this scenario.

Question 13

Grill Time Inc. makes commercial cooking appliances, including a grill in use by Haute Cuisine Food Cart. Inez, a Haute employee, is injured when the grill malfunctions. If the injury occurred as a result of a misrepresentation about the product, Grill Time is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

If the injury occurred as a result of a misrepresentation about the product, Grill Time is most likely liable for fraud. Misrepresentation means giving false or misleading information to the consumer, which constitutes fraud.

Question 14

DIY-Haul, Inc., makes, sells, and leases hauling equipment for consumer use. Ed files a product liability suit against DIY-Haul, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider

Accepted Answer

The court may consider the expectations of the ordinary consumer in deciding whether to hold the maker liable for a design defect. This means that the court will examine whether the product was unreasonably dangerous or not based on what an ordinary consumer would expect from the product. The assumptions, intentions, and identity of the maker are not relevant to determining liability in a product liability suit based on design defect.

Question 15

Insulate Inc. makes and sells fire-retardant building materials. In a product liability suit against Insulate, a court would use a risk-utility analysis of the company's product as designed to determine whether

Accepted Answer

In product liability suits, courts use a risk-utility analysis to determine whether the risk of harm posed by a product outweighs its utility to the users and the public. This analysis involves weighing the benefits and risks of the product, considering alternative designs, and determining whether the product meets accepted safety standards. The court will consider whether a reasonable person would consider the design safe and whether the manufacturer could have designed a safer product without sacrificing utility. Ultimately, if the risk of harm outweighs the product's utility, the manufacturer may be held liable for any resulting injuries or damages.

Question 16

Steps & Rungs Inc. makes ladders. Ty discovers that his Steps & Rungs ladder is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on strict liability. To win, Ty must show that

Accepted Answer

To win a product liability based on strict liability, Ty must prove that the ladder was in a defective condition when it was sold by Steps & Rungs. It is not necessary to prove that Ty bought the ladder from Steps & Rungs, nor that he is normally engaged in the business use of ladders.

Question 17

EquiMeds Company and GenDrugs Inc. make and distribute prescription drugs. In a product-liability suit against both parties, the court is most likely to impose market-share liability if it cannot be proved which of the parties

Accepted Answer

Market-share liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover damages from multiple manufacturers of the same product based on their proportionate share of the market when it is impossible to determine which manufacturer's product caused the injury. This approach is most applicable when the court cannot establish which party supplied the specific product that resulted in harm.

Question 18

Rev Motor Company buys plugs and points from Sparkplugs Inc. and puts them in Rev vehicles without changing their composition. If the parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects may be

Accepted Answer

Both Rev and Sparkplugs are responsible for any damages caused by the defective parts since the parts were purchased from Sparkplugs Inc. and put into Rev vehicles without any changes. Strict liability would hold both parties accountable for any harm caused by the faulty parts. The owner and operator of the Rev vehicle would not be held strictly liable unless they were aware of the defects and failed to take action. Therefore, option B is incorrect. Option A and D are also incorrect since both parties would share responsibility for any damages caused by the defects.

Question 19

Ceramic Corporation makes commercial ceramic products, including heat-resistant tiles for industrial ovens. When damage occurs in an oven at Duramold Inc., strict product liability may be imposed on Ceramic if the tiles sold to Duramold were

Accepted Answer

Strict product liability would be imposed on Ceramic if the heat-resistant tiles sold to Duramold were in a defective condition that was the proximate cause of the damage. If the tiles were in perfect condition at the time of their sale, Ceramic would not be liable. If the tiles were damaged by their use, Duramold or the user may be at fault. If the tiles were substantially changed after their sale, Ceramic would not be liable unless the changes were foreseeable and contributed to the damage.

Question 20

Sail-Away Corporation makes sailboards, which are distributed by Tropical Marketing Company to UV Sports Stores Inc., which sells them to consumers. Wen is injured while using a Sail-Away board that he bought from UV Sports. In a product liability suit based on strict liability, Wen may recover from

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit based on strict liability, all parties in the chain of distribution, from manufacturer to retailer, may be held liable for any injuries caused by the product. Therefore, Wen may recover from Sail-Away, Tropical, or UV Sports.

Quiz 6: Product Liability