Question 1

When an individual glass bottle of soda shatters in someone's hand causing a cut, and most bottles of the same type do not ordinarily shatter in that manner, the most likely type of defect in that bottle is a ________ defect.

Accepted Answer

This is a manufacturing defect because it pertains to a problem that occurred during the production of the bottle, making this particular bottle different from others in a way that it unexpectedly shattered. Design defects would involve all bottles of the same type being flawed, and warning defects relate to failures in communicating risks. Punitive and negligent are not types of product defects but legal terms related to the consequences or behaviors leading to defects.

Question 2

[Allergy Injuries] Drug company ABC Drugs introduced a new over-the-counter allergy pill guaranteed to prevent sneezing and sniffling for twenty-four hours after the consumption of one pill. The packaging contained warnings of the drug's side effects, including nausea and headache. After it was initially put on the market, the company became aware of a risk of dizziness from the drug in people with high blood pressure. However, the company did not warn of the additional risk because the company was concerned that individuals might not buy the pill. The risk of dizziness for the average person was extremely low. Julia had suffered allergies for years and had tried nearly every new product on the market. She even maintained a blog called "Ask the Expert About Allergies." She thought that ABC's pill was a great idea and purchased it at her local convenience store. She purchased the product after the date the company became aware of the issues involving dizziness. She took one pill and felt fine for a few days. Then, however, she began feeling dizzy. Her dizziness caused her to fall and break her leg on a flight of steps. She later discovered that the allergy pill likely made her dizzy. Julia sued under state law alleging failure to warn of the dangerous side effect of the drug. The drug company claimed that it had no duty to list dizziness as a risk because it was an over-the-counter drug and the risk of dizziness to the average person was extremely rare.
-Is the company correct that it had no duty to warn of the risk of dizziness?

Accepted Answer

Manufacturers of over-the-counter drugs have a duty to warn consumers about known risks associated with their products, especially when they become aware of specific side effects that could harm a subset of users, such as those with high blood pressure in this case.

Question 3

What is another name for the risk-utility test?

Accepted Answer

The risk-utility test, also known as the feasible alternatives test, is used in product liability law to determine if a product's design is defective by weighing the risks of harm posed by the product against its utility or usefulness.

Question 4

Since states are not in agreement as to how to establish a design defect, what two theories have evolved to determine when a product is so defective as to be dangerous?

Accepted Answer

The two theories that have evolved to determine when a product is so defective as to be dangerous are the consumer expectations test and the feasible alternatives test. These theories help in assessing whether a product's design is unreasonably dangerous either by failing to meet ordinary consumer expectations or by the existence of a safer, feasible alternative design.

Question 5

What did the Hawaiian court determine about mortgages as a product under product liability law in the Case Nugget Radford v. Wells Fargo Bank?

Accepted Answer

The Hawaiian court determined that mortgages are not a "product" that can be subject to a product liability suit, thus aligning with the general legal perspective that financial instruments like mortgages do not fall under the category of products in the context of product liability law.

Question 6

Which of the following causes of action stem from contract theory?

Accepted Answer

Breach of warranty is a cause of action that arises from contract theory, as it involves the failure to fulfill the terms of a promise or representation made in a contract.

Question 7

In a product liability action in which strict liability is alleged, courts focus on ________.

Accepted Answer

In a strict liability case, the focus is on the state of the product itself, not on the behavior or knowledge of the manufacturer or seller. The key question is whether the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time of sale, regardless of the manufacturer's or seller's conduct or intentions.

Question 8

Which of the following is true regarding proof of design defect?

Accepted Answer

States vary in their requirements for proving a design defect, reflecting differences in legal standards and interpretations. There is no uniform federal law or international treaty that dictates the proof required, and local counties do not individually determine these standards.

Question 9

As recognized by the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, which of the following is true under the risk-utility analysis of product liability?

Accepted Answer

Under the risk-utility analysis, a product is considered unreasonably dangerous if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact outweighs the utility of the product.

Question 10

Which of the following codes highlights a breach of warranty theory of liability?

Accepted Answer

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is the correct answer because it is a comprehensive set of laws governing all commercial transactions in the United States, including the sale of goods. It includes provisions that deal with the breach of warranty, making it relevant to a breach of warranty theory of liability.

Question 11

Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which of the following results in strict liability?

Accepted Answer

Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, strict liability is imposed for manufacturing defects. This is because manufacturing defects deviate from the product's intended design, making them inherently dangerous. Design defects and failures to warn, however, typically involve a different analysis that focuses on the reasonableness of the design or warning, rather than strict liability.

Question 12

[Squirt Gun Mishap] Marie decided to purchase a large squirt gun for her son, Alex, to use while playing in the pool. The squirt gun was of a very elaborate variety and had a number of different attachments for different sprays of water. The squirt gun came with instructions for assembly and use, and provided warnings against various types of misuse. The pamphlet that came with the squirt gun advised that the squirt gun should be used only under adult supervision, that it must not be used by children under 11 years old, and that nothing should be put into the squirt gun except water. Alex had a party for his tenth birthday at the pool. A number of children came. A guest, Sophie, age 10, decided to load pebbles along with water into the gun. She began shooting the gun and hit Rachel, another guest, in the eye, requiring treatment at an emergency room. Rachel required some minor surgery, but sustained no permanent injury. Rachel's parents stated that they looked at the squirt gun when they initially arrived at the party, but did not notice any warnings affixed directly to the product. Rachel's parents want to sue someone for something, but they do not particularly want to sue Marie, their friend and hostess of the party.
-Which statement is true regarding a lawsuit brought by Rachel's parents against the manufacturer of the squirt gun for strict liability?

Accepted Answer

Privity of contract, which refers to a direct contractual relationship between two parties, is not a requirement for a lawsuit based on strict liability in tort. Strict liability allows for a party to be held liable for damages irrespective of fault, provided the activity or product in question is inherently dangerous or defective and causes harm. This principle applies to product liability cases, where manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by their products, even if the injured party did not directly purchase the product from them.

Question 13

[Squirt Gun Mishap] Marie decided to purchase a large squirt gun for her son, Alex, to use while playing in the pool. The squirt gun was of a very elaborate variety and had a number of different attachments for different sprays of water. The squirt gun came with instructions for assembly and use, and provided warnings against various types of misuse. The pamphlet that came with the squirt gun advised that the squirt gun should be used only under adult supervision, that it must not be used by children under 11 years old, and that nothing should be put into the squirt gun except water. Alex had a party for his tenth birthday at the pool. A number of children came. A guest, Sophie, age 10, decided to load pebbles along with water into the gun. She began shooting the gun and hit Rachel, another guest, in the eye, requiring treatment at an emergency room. Rachel required some minor surgery, but sustained no permanent injury. Rachel's parents stated that they looked at the squirt gun when they initially arrived at the party, but did not notice any warnings affixed directly to the product. Rachel's parents want to sue someone for something, but they do not particularly want to sue Marie, their friend and hostess of the party.
-Which statement is true regarding warnings and the usage of products by children?

Accepted Answer

Warnings need to be designed considering the users of the product. If children are likely to use or come into contact with a product, picture warnings or other forms of warnings that can be understood by children might be necessary to effectively communicate the risks and proper usage of the product.

Question 14

What was the ruling of the court in the case of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., the case in which the plaintiff injured his hand when a jar containing peanuts broke?

Accepted Answer

The ruling allowed the plaintiff to proceed on his claim because the defendant could not prove that the jar had been damaged after its purchase, which is a key aspect in product liability cases where the condition of the product at the time of injury is often crucial.

Question 15

[Squirt Gun Mishap] Marie decided to purchase a large squirt gun for her son, Alex, to use while playing in the pool. The squirt gun was of a very elaborate variety and had a number of different attachments for different sprays of water. The squirt gun came with instructions for assembly and use, and provided warnings against various types of misuse. The pamphlet that came with the squirt gun advised that the squirt gun should be used only under adult supervision, that it must not be used by children under 11 years old, and that nothing should be put into the squirt gun except water. Alex had a party for his tenth birthday at the pool. A number of children came. A guest, Sophie, age 10, decided to load pebbles along with water into the gun. She began shooting the gun and hit Rachel, another guest, in the eye, requiring treatment at an emergency room. Rachel required some minor surgery, but sustained no permanent injury. Rachel's parents stated that they looked at the squirt gun when they initially arrived at the party, but did not notice any warnings affixed directly to the product. Rachel's parents want to sue someone for something, but they do not particularly want to sue Marie, their friend and hostess of the party.
-Which statement is true regarding any assertion by Rachel's parents that a warning should have been affixed to the product itself to warn adults as well as children?

Accepted Answer

Warnings should be placed directly on the product itself if it is likely that parties other than the original purchasers will use the product, to ensure that all potential users are aware of the risks and proper usage guidelines.

Question 16

Kobi was a budding young tennis star. He purchased several new state of the art tennis rackets from a local tennis merchant. Each racket cost Kobi over $600. As Kobi went to serve with his new racket, as soon as the ball contacted the racket head, the racket head splintered causing the strings to become unbound. Each of Kobi's new rackets responded the same way, rendering them useless. If Kobi sues, what warranty theory would he sue on?

Accepted Answer

The implied warranty of merchantability is a guarantee by the seller that the products sold will work as expected for their intended use. In Kobi's case, the tennis rackets breaking upon first use clearly violates this warranty, as they do not meet the reasonable expectation of durability and performance for tennis rackets.

Question 17

As recognized by the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, which of the following is true regarding the consumer expectations test for product defect?

Accepted Answer

The consumer expectations test for product defect posits that if a plaintiff, using the knowledge of an ordinary consumer, is aware of a danger and can appreciate that danger, they cannot claim damages for any injuries resulting from that recognized danger. This principle underscores the expectation that consumers take responsibility for avoiding known risks associated with products.

Question 18

When is expert testimony admissible in product liability suits?

Accepted Answer

Expert testimony is admissible in product liability suits if it involves scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact (judge or jury) in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue, provided the expert is qualified. This is in line with rules such as the Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States, which allow for expert testimony under these conditions.

Question 19

Which theory might allow a plaintiff to recover when a plaintiff cannot trace an injury caused by a defective product to any particular manufacturer?

Accepted Answer

The market share theory allows a plaintiff to recover damages from manufacturers based on their share of the market for the product that caused the injury, even if the plaintiff cannot identify the specific manufacturer of the defective product that caused the injury. This theory is particularly used in cases involving harmful products distributed by multiple manufacturers.

Question 20

[Squirt Gun Mishap] Marie decided to purchase a large squirt gun for her son, Alex, to use while playing in the pool. The squirt gun was of a very elaborate variety and had a number of different attachments for different sprays of water. The squirt gun came with instructions for assembly and use, and provided warnings against various types of misuse. The pamphlet that came with the squirt gun advised that the squirt gun should be used only under adult supervision, that it must not be used by children under 11 years old, and that nothing should be put into the squirt gun except water. Alex had a party for his tenth birthday at the pool. A number of children came. A guest, Sophie, age 10, decided to load pebbles along with water into the gun. She began shooting the gun and hit Rachel, another guest, in the eye, requiring treatment at an emergency room. Rachel required some minor surgery, but sustained no permanent injury. Rachel's parents stated that they looked at the squirt gun when they initially arrived at the party, but did not notice any warnings affixed directly to the product. Rachel's parents want to sue someone for something, but they do not particularly want to sue Marie, their friend and hostess of the party.
-Which statement is true regarding a lawsuit brought by Rachel's parents against the manufacturer of the squirt gun for negligence?

Accepted Answer

Privity of contract, which refers to the relationship between parties in a contract, is not required for a negligence lawsuit. In cases of negligence, the focus is on the breach of a duty of care that results in injury, rather than on contractual relationships. Therefore, Rachel's parents could potentially sue the manufacturer for negligence if they believe the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or safety instructions, regardless of whether they had a direct contract with the manufacturer.

Quiz 10: Product Liability