Question 1

River Rock Company makes spas and hot tubs. Sterling files a product liability suit against River Rock, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold the defendant liable, the court may take note that a manufacturer or seller has no duty to warn about risks that are​

Accepted Answer

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

Question 2

Camp Gear, Inc., makes and sells a camp stove to Devin. Camp Gear fails to exercise "due care" to make the stove safe, however, and Devin is injured as a result. Camp Gear is most likely liable for​

Accepted Answer

Camp Gear's failure to exercise "due care" indicates a breach of their duty of care towards Devin, which constitutes negligence.

Question 3

Rose, who is obese, files a product liability suit against Burger Meal Corporation (BMC), alleging that BMC's food is unhealthy because, as Rose knows, it contains high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat. BMC can most successfully assert the defense of​

Accepted Answer

The knowledgeable user defense is most likely to be successful in this case because Rose was aware of the risks associated with eating BMC's food.

Question 4

Sail-Away Corporation makes sailboards, which are bought and distributed by Tropic 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, the manufacturer, distributor, and seller can be held liable. Therefore, Wen may recover from Sail-Away, Tropic, or UV Sports as all three parties are involved in the distribution/sale of the sailboard.

Question 5

Brandname Parts, Inc., makes and sells parts for the repair of major appliances. Clarice suffers a loss when a defective Brandname part in her freezer fails to keep the contents fresh. A statute restricts the time within which Clarice may file a product liability suit once she has discovered or should have discovered the damage. This is a statute of​

Accepted Answer

A statute that restricts the time within which a person can file a product liability suit is known as a statute of limitations. It limits the amount of time that a person has to bring a lawsuit after discovering or should have discovered the damage caused by a defective product. Therefore, choice A is the correct answer. Choice B, preemption, refers to a situation in which federal law supersedes state law. Choice C, repose, refers to a statute that limits the amount of time within which a person can bring a product liability suit, irrespective of when the damage was discovered. Finally, choice D, suspension, refers to a temporary halt or delay in legal proceedings.

Question 6

Island Breeze Company designs and makes desk, window, and ceiling fans. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Island Breeze could be liable for violating its duty of care with respect to all of the following except​

Accepted Answer

Island Breeze cannot be held liable for a consumer's unforeseeable misuse of a fan as they have no control over it. However, the company could be liable for negligence in the design, production process, and insufficient warnings on the labels of the fans.

Question 7

Cookin' Products Company makes heat convection ovens. DeAnn discovers that her Cookin' oven is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on strict liability. To win, DeAnn must show that she​

Accepted Answer

In a strict liability case, the plaintiff must prove that the product was defective and that the defect caused their injury.

Question 8

Garage Magic, Inc., contracts for the sale of a certain number of garage door openers to Home & Yard Hardware stores. Ian buys one of openers. The applicable statute of limitations prescribes a period of four years. To bring a product liability claim against Garage Magic, Ian must file a suit within four years of​

Accepted Answer

The statute of limitations for product liability claims typically begins when the injury is discovered or should have been discovered, not when the product was sold or designed.

Question 9

Garden Tool Company makes chain saws. Hadrian is injured while using a Garden saw and sues the company for product liability based on negligence. To win, Hadrian must show that​

Accepted Answer

To prove product liability based on negligence, Hadrian must show that Garden failed to use reasonable care in designing or manufacturing the chain saw, or in warning consumers about its potential dangers. Therefore, choice A is the correct answer. Choices B, C, and D are irrelevant to the issue of product liability based on negligence.

Question 10

City Slick, Inc. makes cosmetics. City Slick intentionally mislabels its packaged products to conceal a defect. Trusting and relying on the mislabeling, Dora buys a City Slick product and suffers an injury. City Slick is most likely liable for​

Accepted Answer

City Slick intentionally mislabelled its product to deceive consumers, which constitutes fraud. Dora, as a consumer, relied on the misrepresentation, resulting in her injury. Therefore, City Slick is liable for fraud.

Question 11

Global Insulation Company makes and sells fire-retardant building materials. To determine whether the risk of harm from the products as designed outweigh their utility to the users and the public, most courts would engage in​

Accepted Answer

Most courts would engage in a risk-utility analysis to determine whether the risk of harm from the products as designed outweigh their utility to the users and the public. This analysis involves weighing the risks associated with using the product against the benefits of using it. Factors such as the likelihood and severity of harm, the availability and feasibility of alternative designs, and the cost of implementing those alternative designs would be considered.

Question 12

Saki, an air conditioning and heating technician, files a suit against Temp-Set Corporation, alleging that its thermostats are unreasonably dangerous due to the possibility of electrical shock. Temp-Set's best defense is most likely​

Accepted Answer

The best defense for Temp-Set Corporation would be the knowledgeable user defense, meaning that as an air conditioning and heating technician, Saki should have knowledge of the potential dangers of working with electrical equipment and should have taken appropriate precautions while using Temp-Set's thermostats.

Question 13

Flo is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Girder Company-made beam. At the time, Flo is not wearing any safety gear. In Flo's product liability suit against Girder, the company can most successfully raise the defense of​

Accepted Answer

In this scenario, Girder Company can most successfully raise the defense of comparative negligence. Comparative negligence is a legal theory that allows a defendant to argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injuries. In this case, Flo was not wearing any safety gear, which could be seen as negligent behavior on her part. Therefore, Girder may argue that Flo's lack of safety gear was a contributing factor to her injuries, and that she was partially responsible for her own damages. By successfully proving comparative negligence, Girder could potentially reduce their liability and the amount they would be required to pay in damages.

Question 14

Arrow Corporation makes archery supplies. While using an Arrow bow, Balto is injured due to a defect in the bow that causes an arrow to misfire. Chu, another archer standing by, is also injured. In a product liability suit based on strict product liability, Arrow may be liable to​

Accepted Answer

Strict product liability holds the manufacturer liable for any damages caused by a defective product, regardless of how careful they were in making or designing it. In this case, both Balto and Chu were injured due to a defect in the Arrow bow, so Arrow may be liable to both of them under strict product liability.

Question 15

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes and sells soft drinks. Talia buys and drinks a Soda beverage, which proves defective and injures her. One justification for holding Soda strictly liable for the harm caused to Talia by its defective product is that​

Accepted Answer

The justification for holding Soda strictly liable for the harm caused to Talia by its defective product is that Soda is in a better position than Talia to bear the cost of her injury. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds manufacturers liable for harm caused by their products, regardless of fault. The purpose of this doctrine is to shift the burden of injuries caused by defective products from the injured party to the party in the best position to prevent them. In this case, Soda is the manufacturer and seller of the defective product and is therefore in the best position to prevent harm caused by its products. Talia, as the injured party, is not in a position to prevent the harm caused by Soda's defective product. Hence, holding Soda strictly liable is justified.

Question 16

Digg Deep Inc. makes and leases a backhoe to Estes. Due to a defect attributable to Digg Deep's negligence, Estes is injured in an accident in which his neighbor Fortis is also hurt. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Digg Deep may be liable to​

Accepted Answer

Digg Deep could be liable to both Estes and Fortis because they were both injured due to a defect in the backhoe that was caused by Digg Deep's negligence.

Question 17

ClearCall Corporation makes phones, which are sold to consumers by DefDeals stores. Erna files a product liability suit against ClearCall, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold ClearCall liable, the court may consider​

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit alleging a design defect, the court may consider an available alternative design, meaning whether there was a feasible alternative design that could have prevented the injury or harm caused. The court would not typically consider the intended use of the product, method of accounting by the retailer, or the manufacturer's quality control efforts in deciding liability for a design defect.

Question 18

Therapy Corporation makes medical devices that are subject to extensive government regulation and undergo a rigorous premarket approval process. In a product liability suit against Therapy by a party allegedly injured by one of the devices, the company can most successfully raise the defense of​

Accepted Answer

Preemption is the defense that the product complied with all government regulations and the manufacturer cannot be held liable for any harm caused by the product. As Therapy Corporation's medical devices are subject to extensive government regulation, this defense can be successfully raised in a product liability suit.

Question 19

Fleet Feet Corporation makes athletic shoes. Gloria, a marathoner, files a product liability suit against Fleet Feet, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold Fleet Feet liable, the court may consider an alternative design's​

Accepted Answer

The court may consider the advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design in deciding whether to hold Fleet Feet liable for a design defect. This will help the court assess whether the design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous and whether an alternative design would have been safer without significantly impacting the product's usefulness and feasibility. The popularity among industrial designers and consumers, weight, and aesthetics may not be relevant factors in determining whether there is a design defect in the product.

Question 20

MedBeat Inc., makes medical devices, including heart pacemakers. Nina, a heart patient, files a product liability suit against MedBeat, alleging a warning defect with respect to its pacemaker. In deciding whether to hold MedBeat liable, the court may consider whether there is a foreseeable risk of harm posed by the pacemaker and​

Accepted Answer

The court may consider whether the omission of a warning renders the pacemaker not reasonably safe, as this relates directly to the alleged warning defect in the product liability suit.

Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

River Rock Company makes spas and hot tubs. Sterling files a product liability suit against River Rock, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold the defendant liable, the court may take note that a manufacturer or seller has no duty to warn about risks that are

Camp Gear, Inc., makes and sells a camp stove to Devin. Camp Gear fails to exercise "due care" to make the stove safe, however, and Devin is injured as a result. Camp Gear is most likely liable for

Rose, who is obese, files a product liability suit against Burger Meal Corporation (BMC) , alleging that BMC's food is unhealthy because, as Rose knows, it contains high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat. BMC can most successfully assert the defense of

Sail-Away Corporation makes sailboards, which are bought and distributed by Tropic 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

Island Breeze Company designs and makes desk, window, and ceiling fans. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Island Breeze could be liable for violating its duty of care with respect to all of the following except

Cookin' Products Company makes heat convection ovens. DeAnn discovers that her Cookin' oven is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on strict liability. To win, DeAnn must show that she

Garden Tool Company makes chain saws. Hadrian is injured while using a Garden saw and sues the company for product liability based on negligence. To win, Hadrian must show that

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

Global Insulation Company makes and sells fire-retardant building materials. To determine whether the risk of harm from the products as designed outweigh their utility to the users and the public, most courts would engage in

Saki, an air conditioning and heating technician, files a suit against Temp-Set Corporation, alleging that its thermostats are unreasonably dangerous due to the possibility of electrical shock. Temp-Set's best defense is most likely

Flo is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Girder Company-made beam. At the time, Flo is not wearing any safety gear. In Flo's product liability suit against Girder, the company can most successfully raise the defense of

Arrow Corporation makes archery supplies. While using an Arrow bow, Balto is injured due to a defect in the bow that causes an arrow to misfire. Chu, another archer standing by, is also injured. In a product liability suit based on strict product liability, Arrow may be liable to

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes and sells soft drinks. Talia buys and drinks a Soda beverage, which proves defective and injures her. One justification for holding Soda strictly liable for the harm caused to Talia by its defective product is that

Digg Deep Inc. makes and leases a backhoe to Estes. Due to a defect attributable to Digg Deep's negligence, Estes is injured in an accident in which his neighbor Fortis is also hurt. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Digg Deep may be liable to

ClearCall Corporation makes phones, which are sold to consumers by DefDeals stores. Erna files a product liability suit against ClearCall, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold ClearCall liable, the court may consider

Therapy Corporation makes medical devices that are subject to extensive government regulation and undergo a rigorous premarket approval process. In a product liability suit against Therapy by a party allegedly injured by one of the devices, the company can most successfully raise the defense of

Fleet Feet Corporation makes athletic shoes. Gloria, a marathoner, files a product liability suit against Fleet Feet, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold Fleet Feet liable, the court may consider an alternative design's