Question 1

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 principle of strict liability holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for any harm caused by their defective products, even if they were not negligent or reckless. One of the justifications for this is that the manufacturer or seller is in a better position to bear the cost of the injury than the injured party. In this case, Talia is the injured party, and Soda Bubbles Corporation is the manufacturer and seller of the defective beverage. Therefore, holding Soda strictly liable for Talia's injury is justified based on the principle of allocating the cost of harm to the party who is better able to bear it. The other options are not relevant to the justification of strict liability in this case.

Question 2

A statute of limitations may restrict the time within which an action in product liability may be brought.

Accepted Answer

A statute of limitations sets a time limit within which a lawsuit must be filed. If the time limit specified in the statute of limitations has expired, the plaintiff will not be able to file a claim regardless of the merit of the case.

Question 3

If the misuse of a product is reasonably foreseeable, the seller must take measures to guard against it.

Accepted Answer

This is a principle of product liability law, also known as the "foreseeable misuse doctrine." The seller or manufacturer of a product is responsible for guarding against any foreseeable misuse of the product, and warning consumers of potential risks.

Question 4

Forest & Field Company makes and leases a backhoe to Gallagher. Due to a defect attributable to Forest & Field's negligence, Gallagher is injured in an accident in which his neighbor Helga is also hurt. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Forest & Field may be liable to

Accepted Answer

Forest & Field Company may be liable to both Gallagher and Helga because they are both injured as a result of the defect in the backhoe that was attributable to Forest & Field's negligence. As a manufacturer and lessor of the product, Forest & Field has a duty to ensure that the product is reasonably safe for its intended use, and their negligence in fulfilling this duty may make them liable for any resulting injuries.

Question 5

Even if a particular danger is commonly known by the users of a product, the maker or seller of must warn these users of the danger.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Even if a particular danger is commonly...

Question 6

A statute of repose places outer time limits on product liability actions.

Accepted Answer

A statute of repose sets a specific time period after which a product liability action cannot be brought, even if the injury or damage happened later. This is different from a statute of limitations, which sets a time limit from the time the injury or damage occurred to when the lawsuit must be filed.

Question 7

Some courts consider the negligent actions of both the plaintiff and the defendant when apportioning liability in a product liability action.

Accepted Answer

Some courts follow the principle of comparative negligence or contributory negligence, which means that the plaintiff's own negligence or inaction in contributing to their injuries and damages is taken into account when determining the liability of the defendant in a product liability case.

Question 8

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 vio-lating its duty of care with respect to all of the following except

Accepted Answer

A manufacturer cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from a consumer's unforeseeable misuse of a product. However, the manufacturer still has a duty to design safe products, use safe production processes, and provide adequate warnings to consumers about the safe and proper use of the product.

Question 9

Sellers are required to take precautions against every conceivable misuse of a product.

Accepted Answer

Sellers are not required to take precautions against every conceivable misuse of a product. They are responsible for warning consumers of known and foreseeable risks associated with the product and providing adequate instructions for safe use. However, it is ultimately the consumer's responsibility to use the product properly and take necessary precautions.

Question 10

Those who can be held liable on a theory of product liability for physical harm or property damage caused by defective goods include all of the following except

Accepted Answer

The answer of Those who can be held liable on...

Question 11

Downhill Racer Company makes and sells a pair of skis to Elinor. Downhill fails to exercise “due care” to make the skis safe, and Elinor is injured as a result. Downhill Racer is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

Downhill Racer would be liable for negligence, as they failed to exercise due care in making the product safe for use. They may not be liable for any alterations made to the skis after they were sold, as those alterations were not under their control. Misrepresentation would only be applicable if Downhill Racer intentionally misled Elinor about the safety of the skis, which is not stated in the scenario. Therefore, the best answer is C.

Question 12

Recovery in a product liability case may be limited when it can be shown that the plaintiff misused the product.

Accepted Answer

If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff misused the product in a way that was not foreseeable or that the plaintiff's misuse was the sole cause of their injuries, then the plaintiff's recovery may be limited or barred altogether.

Question 13

Assumption of risk can never be used as a defense in a product liability action.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk can be used as a defense in a product liability action if the defendant can show that the plaintiff knew of the risk and voluntarily chose to proceed despite the risk. However, this defense has limitations and may not be applicable in all cases.

Question 14

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

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. Manufacturing defects are one of the three types of product defects recognized in product liability law, along with design defects and warning defects.

Question 15

Under a theory of market-share liability, a manufacturer sells "shares" of its potential strict liability and thereby spreads the risk and the cost.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under a theory of market-share liability, a...

Question 16

A design defect will support the imposition of liability on a strict product liability basis.

Accepted Answer

If a product has a design defect, it is considered unreasonably dangerous and is likely to cause harm to the user. As per strict product liability, the manufacturer can be held liable for any injuries or damages caused by the defective product. Therefore, a design defect supports the imposition of liability on a strict product liability basis.

Question 17

To successfully assert a design defect, a plaintiff has to show that no reasonable alternative design was available.

Accepted Answer

To successfully assert a design defect, a plaintiff does not have to show that no reasonable alternative design was available. Alternative designs may be considered and weighed as a factor, but the focus is on whether the design at issue is unreasonably dangerous.

Question 18

Generally, the strict liability of manufactures and other sellers does not extend to injured bystanders.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Generally, the strict liability of manufactures and...

Question 19

As a defense to product liability, comparative negligence completely absolves a defendant of liability.

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence may reduce the defendant's liability, but it does not completely absolve them of liability. The plaintiff's own negligence is taken into account and their damages are reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to them. However, the defendant is still responsible for the percentage of harm caused by their own negligence.

Question 20

Suppliers are generally required to expect reasonably foreseeable misuses of their products.

Accepted Answer

Suppliers have a duty to anticipate reasonably foreseeable misuses of their products and take measures to minimize the harm caused by such misuse. This is known as the doctrine of strict product liability.

Quiz 5: Product Liability