Question 1

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 2

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

In many jurisdictions, a defendant can argue that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to their injuries, potentially reducing the defendant's liability through comparative or contributory negligence principles, even in cases involving defective products.

Question 3

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 4

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

Accepted Answer

The traditionally recognized types of product defects in product liability law are manufacturing defects, design defects, and informational defects (such as inadequate instructions or warnings), not careless marketing.

Question 5

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

Accepted Answer

A product can be considered defective if it lacks adequate warnings or instructions that, if provided, would make the product safe for use. The omission of reasonable warnings can lead to a product being deemed not reasonably safe, as consumers may not be aware of potential risks or proper usage, leading to accidents or injuries.

Question 6

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 7

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
A)only if the company failed to use reasonable care.
B)only if the company was greater than 50 percent at fault.
C)only if the company was entirely at fault.
D)without regard to the fault of the company.

Accepted Answer

Under the doctrine of strict liability, a party can be held liable for damages irrespective of fault. This means that Mountain Blasters Inc. would be liable for Noh's injury without regard to whether the company was at fault.

Question 8

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

Accepted Answer

Strict liability for manufacturing defects means manufacturers are held responsible for any harm caused by defects in their products, regardless of fault. This incentivizes them to invest more in ensuring their products are safe to avoid potential liabilities.

Question 9

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

Accepted Answer

Liability for a manufacturing defect is typically imposed on a manufacturer regardless of the reasonableness of its quality control efforts, because the focus is on whether the product was defective and caused harm, not on the manufacturer's conduct or efforts to prevent the defect.

Question 10

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
A)fraud.
B)misrepresentation.
C)negligence
D)strict liability.

Accepted Answer

Baby Things Inc. would most likely be liable for negligence because they failed to exercise "due care" in making the crib safe, which directly led to Dua's injury. Negligence involves a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances, which in this case relates to ensuring the product's safety.

Question 11

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

Accepted Answer

A manufacturer or seller is generally not required to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known because it is assumed that the user is already aware of such common dangers.

Question 12

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
A)Wild Life is not a corporation.
B)the public is considered inherently negligent.
C)the activity is extremely risky.
D)the amount of liability can be added to the costs of attendance.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability is imposed on activities that are considered extremely risky, such as keeping and displaying wild animals, because of the inherent dangers involved, regardless of the precautions taken.

Question 13

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

In strict product liability cases, the focus is on whether the product was unreasonably dangerous due to a defect in design, manufacturing, or inadequate warnings, not on the plaintiff's behavior or awareness of risk.

Question 14

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

Accepted Answer

Courts often use the "reasonableness" test to evaluate if a product's warnings are sufficient in alerting consumers about potential risks, ensuring that the warnings are clear, visible, and understandable to a reasonable person.

Question 15

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 16

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
A)any of the choices.
B)ordering a halt to the production of Ground-Up.
C)issuing a recall of all Ground-Up.
D)suing Herbicides Inc.

Accepted Answer

Felice can sue Herbicides Inc. for damages caused by the defective product under product liability laws. Options B and C are actions typically taken by regulatory agencies or the company itself, not individual consumers.

Question 17

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 18

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

Accepted Answer

Federal preemption occurs when federal law overrides or preempts state law, including in areas of extensive government regulation. If a product is subject to extensive federal regulation, claims against its manufacturer may be preempted because the federal government has assumed all regulatory authority over the safety and efficacy of the product, leaving no room for state-level legal claims.

Question 19

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

Courts can consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design when deciding on a claim of design defect, as this helps determine if the original design was unreasonably dangerous and if a safer, feasible alternative was available.

Question 20

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
A)Novi, but not Mai.
B)Mai, but not Novi.
C)none of the parties.
D)Mai and Novi.

Accepted Answer

Off-Road Inc. could be liable to both Mai and Novi under product liability laws. Mai could have a claim due to her injuries caused by the product's failure, and Novi could have a claim due to the product being defective (brake failure) and causing damage to the ATV. Product liability laws are designed to hold manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for injuries caused by defective products.

Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability