Question 1

Some courts do not allow assumption of risk as a defense to a strict product liability claim because the theory focuses on the nature of a product, not the plaintiff's conduct.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk is not a defense in strict product liability claims because the focus is on the product's nature and not the plaintiff's conduct.

Question 2

Product misuse is recognized as a defense to a claim for product liability only when the particular misuse was reasonably foreseeable.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Product misuse is recognized as a defense...

Question 3

Mai is struck and injured when the brakes fail on Novi's all-terrain vehicle (ATV), which is damaged in the collision. Off-Road Inc. sold the ATV to Novi. Under product liability laws, Off-Road could be liable to

Accepted Answer

Off-Road Inc. could be liable to both Mai and Novi under product liability laws. Mai could potentially have a claim based on the defective brakes that caused her injury. Novi could also potentially have a claim for the damage to his ATV caused by the defective brakes.

Question 4

A product will be considered defective when the omission of reasonable warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.

Accepted Answer

This statement defines a situation where a product can be classified as defective. It basically means that if a product does not come with reasonable warnings that could have made it reasonably safe for use, then it will be considered defective.

Question 5

The types of product defects that have traditionally been recognized in product liability law include careless marketing.

Accepted Answer

The types of product defects that have traditionally been recognized in product liability law include manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects, but not careless marketing.

Question 6

A product liability claim against the manufacturer of a product that is subject to extensive government regulation may be preempted.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of preemption holds that federal law may preempt state law in certain areas, such as when there is extensive federal regulation of a particular product or industry. In such cases, a product liability claim against the manufacturer may be preempted by federal law.

Question 7

Felice is injured when a can of Ground-Up explodes into flames. Herbicides Inc. manufactured the Ground-Up. Under product liability laws, Felice's options include

Accepted Answer

Felice's best option under product liability laws would be to sue Herbicides Inc. for her injuries. Ordering a halt to production or issuing a recall may be pursued by regulatory agencies, but it would not directly compensate Felice for her injuries.

Question 8

Generally, a seller is not liable for failing to warn consumers of the harm that can result from a foreseeable misuse of a product.

Accepted Answer

A seller can be liable for failing to warn consumers of harm that can result from a foreseeable misuse of a product, as manufacturers and sellers have a duty to anticipate and warn against potential misuses of their products if such misuses are predictable.

Question 9

A product made in conformity with a manufacturer's design specifications is not considered defective regardless of a flaw in the design.

Accepted Answer

A product can still be considered defective due to a flaw in the design, even if it was made in conformity with the manufacturer's design specifications. Design defects refer to inherent flaws in the product's design that make it unsafe.

Question 10

Liability is imposed on a manufacturer for a manufacturing defect only when the manufacturer's quality control efforts were "reasonable."

Accepted Answer

Liability is imposed on a manufacturer for a manufacturing defect regardless of whether or not the manufacturer's quality control efforts were "reasonable." However, if the manufacturer can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the defect, they may be able to reduce their liability or avoid punitive damages.

Question 11

Wild Life LLC keeps and displays domestic and wild animals in a rural setting for an interested public. Strict liability is imposed on this activity because

Accepted Answer

Strict liability is imposed on activities that are considered extremely risky, such as keeping and displaying wild animals. This means that Wild Life LLC can be held liable for any harm that the animals cause, regardless of whether they did everything they could to prevent it. It has nothing to do with whether Wild Life is a corporation, the negligence of the public, or the costs of attendance.

Question 12

Baby Things Inc. makes and sells a crib to Cara. Baby Things fails to exercise "due care" to make the crib safe, and Cara's child Dua is injured as a result. Baby Things is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

Baby Things Inc. is potentially liable for negligence, as they failed to exercise "due care" in making the crib safe, and this failure directly caused injury to Cara's child Dua. Negligence is a type of tort whereby a duty of care is breached, causing harm to another person. Strict liability, fraud, and misrepresentation all require different elements of proof and do not apply in this scenario.

Question 13

Courts apply a "reasonableness" test to determine if a warning adequately alerts consumers to a product's risks.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. Courts do apply a reasonableness test to assess whether a warning is sufficient to alert consumers to the risks associated with a product. This test considers factors such as the nature of the risk, the intended audience, the presentation of the warning, and the likelihood that the warning will be heeded.

Question 14

Holding defendants strictly liable for manufacturing defects encourages greater investment in product safety.

Accepted Answer

Holding defendants strictly liable for manufacturing defects means that they are responsible for any defects in the product regardless of whether or not they were aware of them or intended them. This encourages manufacturers to invest more in product safety to avoid costly lawsuits and damages, ultimately promoting greater safety for consumers.

Question 15

In a product liability case based on negligence, a defendant may be liable even if the plaintiff has not met the requirements for an action in negligence.

Accepted Answer

In a product liability case based on negligence, the plaintiff must meet the specific requirements for an action in negligence, such as proving duty, breach, causation, and damages, for the defendant to be held liable.

Question 16

A manufacturer or seller has a duty to warn about a risk that is obvious or commonly known.

Accepted Answer

A manufacturer or seller only has a duty to warn about risks that are not obvious or commonly known to the average consumer.

Question 17

In a product liability suit based on a design defect, a manufacturer is liable only when the harm was not reasonably preventable.

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit based on a design defect, a manufacturer can be held liable if the product is unreasonably dangerous due to its design, even if the harm might have been preventable with warnings or instructions. The key issue is whether the product's design is inherently unsafe.

Question 18

In deciding a claim of design defect, a court can consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design for a product.

Accepted Answer

This is true. In a product liability case involving a design defect, the court will consider whether an alternative design would have reduced or eliminated the risk of harm to the user without significantly affecting the product's usefulness or cost. This is known as the risk-utility test.

Question 19

The explosive demolition of a rock formation by Mountain Blasters Inc. injures Noh, who is hiking on a nearby slope. Under the doctrine of strict liability, Mountain Blasters must pay for Noh's injury

Accepted Answer

Under the doctrine of strict liability, Mountain Blasters Inc. is liable for Noh's injury regardless of whether the company used reasonable care or was entirely at fault. This is because the activity of explosive demolition is inherently dangerous and any harm caused by it is the responsibility of the company conducting the demolition.

Question 20

A defendant may be able to limit liability for injuries caused by a defective product by showing that a plaintiff's negligence contributed to the injuries.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the defense of contributory negligence, which reduces the plaintiff's recovery of damages in proportion to their own fault in causing the injuries.

Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability