Question 1

Which of the following is true about statutes of limitation and statutes of repose?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following is true about...

Question 2

As Betty is riding her new "LogLeaper XRTSHX 10,000 GTI" mountain bike,the front axle breaks and she is injured.She decides to sue Generalized,the maker of the bike,after learning that all LogLeapers have this problem.She would most likely sue on the basis of:

Accepted Answer

Betty would most likely sue on the basis of a design defect, as the problem with the front axle is present in all LogLeaper bikes, indicating a flaw in the design rather than an isolated manufacturing error.

Question 3

When a product is found to be defective because of a failure to warn,it means:

Accepted Answer

When a product is found to be defective due to a failure to warn, it means that the product would not have been unreasonably dangerous if consumers had been warned about certain dangers of the product. In other words, the manufacturer had a duty to warn consumers about any potential risks associated with using the product, and because they failed to do so, the product is considered defective.

Question 4

Someone who is injured by a product that he/she purchased new could recover on the basis of:

Accepted Answer

A person injured by a product can potentially recover damages based on breach of warranty, negligence, or strict liability, as these are common legal theories used in product liability cases.

Question 5

A wholesale distributor who is named in a product liability suit based on strict liability could avoid liability if:

Accepted Answer

In strict liability cases, a distributor can avoid liability if the defect that caused the injury occurred after the product left their control.

Question 6

Who can recover for their injuries under product liability law?

Accepted Answer

Product liability law allows anyone who has suffered injuries or damages caused by a faulty product to recover, including those who purchase a product new, those who use a product with the owner's permission, and even non-users such as bystanders who may have been injured by a product. Therefore, option E is the best choice.

Question 7

If a manufacturer produces a defective product,sells it to a wholesaler,who sells it to a retailer,who sells it to a consumer,who is injured,which parties in the chain of distribution are potentially liable under strict liability?

Accepted Answer

Under strict liability, all parties in the chain of distribution are potentially liable for a defective product, including the manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer. The injured consumer can pursue legal action against any of these parties, or all of them, depending on their level of involvement in the distribution of the defective product. Therefore, choice C is the best answer as it includes all potentially liable parties under strict liability.

Question 8

Which of the following is true in a products liability case?

Accepted Answer

In a products liability case, the plaintiff must prove her case with a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the defendant's actions or product caused harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not necessarily need to have purchased the product from the defendant (answer B), and there may or may not be a duty owed depending on the circumstances (answer A). As for proximate causation (answer D), it is certainly an important element for the plaintiff to prove, but its absence would not automatically result in a loss for the plaintiff.

Question 9

A public policy reason for imposing strict product liability on all in the chain of distribution is:

Accepted Answer

Strict product liability is imposed because parties in the distribution chain can spread the cost of liability through insurance, ensuring that injured consumers are compensated.

Question 10

Justin buys a computer from a retailer and his son is injured when the glass on the monitor shatters while he is using it.He sues the wholesaler only and the jury determines that this was a manufacturing defect that existed when the computer left the factory and caused the son's injury.The jury determined that the wholesaler was only 5-percent responsible,the retailer 20-percent,and the manufacturer 75-percent.Justin can:

Accepted Answer

Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, Justin can recover the full amount of his damages from any one of the parties found liable, including the wholesaler, even if they were only 5-percent responsible.

Question 11

In order to recover in a products liability case based on strict liability,the plaintiff must prove that the product had a defect:

Accepted Answer

In a products liability case based on strict liability, the plaintiff must prove that the product had a defect that made it unreasonably dangerous. This means that the defect must have made the product dangerous beyond what an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect, regardless of whether the defendant caused the defect or knew about it. The defect can be of any type, but it must have made the product unreasonably dangerous in order for the plaintiff to recover. The fact that the defect affected the value of the product is not sufficient for recovery under strict liability.

Question 12

Which of the following could not give rise to a strict liability in tort action for products liability?

Accepted Answer

Strict liability in tort action for products liability only applies to products that are defective and unreasonably dangerous to the consumer. Legal services for drafting a will do not fall under this category, and do not give rise to a strict liability in tort action for products liability.

Question 13

What are sellers responsible to provide for regarding the assembly of products they sell?

Accepted Answer

Sellers are responsible for providing adequate instructions for the safe assembly and use of the products they sell. Rebates are not related to assembly or safe use of the product. Therefore, the best choice is E, which includes the two relevant responsibilities.

Question 14

Based on the law of products liability,which of the following is correct?

Accepted Answer

According to the law of products liability, a manufacturer has a duty to design its products to take into account foreseeable misuse. This means that the manufacturer should consider how the product may be used in a way that is unintended but reasonably foreseeable, and design the product to minimize the risk of injury or harm in such scenarios. The manufacturer is not expected to design its products to take into account all possible misuse or use by anyone other than the initial purchaser, but it must at least take into account foreseeable misuse.

Question 15

Paul purchased a deluxe motor home from Wide Open Spaces Motor Homes.In a products liability suit against Wide Open Spaces Motor Homes Corporation,Paul must show which of the following in order to recover?

Accepted Answer

In a products liability suit, the plaintiff must prove that a defect in the product made it unreasonably dangerous and caused the injury. The other options (A, B, D, E) may be relevant in other types of lawsuits, but in this case, the focus is on the defect in the product.

Question 16

Under the judicial philosophies developed in the area of product liability:

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of privity of contract has been greatly reduced in importance in product liability cases. This means that consumers may be able to recover damages even if they did not have a direct contract with the manufacturer or seller of the product. The other options are incorrect: A is not necessarily true as some consumers may choose to sue despite the high cost of legal expenses, B is also not necessarily true as privity of contract may not apply in all cases, and D is not entirely true as the UCC does provide some protections for consumers.

Question 17

Little Bobby,5 years old,finds his older brother's "Extendo Sword," which is a toy sword about a foot long which springs out to 5 feet long when a button is pushed on the handle.His mother tells him to put it down because he will hurt someone if he's not careful.Bobby pushes the button when the sword is pointed toward his face and,just as all properly functioning "Extendo Swords" do,the sword shoots out.Bobby is injured and,under products liability,sues the toy store which sold the toy.Bobby will most likely:

Accepted Answer

Bobby may argue that there was a design defect in the "Extendo Sword" which caused his injury, as it shot out unexpectedly when he pushed the button. The fact that such injury occurred suggests that the sword was not reasonably safe for its intended use, and thus it may have a design defect. Therefore, Bobby can hold the toy store liable under products liability. Options A, B, and E may not apply because Bobby's act of playing with the sword after being told not to, proving negligence on the part of the toy store, or showcasing state-of-the-art design do not necessarily determine whether the sword had a design defect. Option C also does not apply because the question does not suggest any manufacturing error.

Question 18

What is the significance of a "defect" in a products liability case based on strict liability?

Accepted Answer

In products liability cases based on strict liability, the presence of a defect is a required element in the proof of the case. The plaintiff must prove that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control and that the defect caused the injury. The plaintiff does not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent.

Question 19

Which of the following best describes the defense of correction of a defect?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following best describes the...

Question 20

Irma bought a new Zenith car from the Zenith dealership.As Irma was driving it,one of the wheels fell off,causing the car to crash and Irma to be injured.It can be shown that the manufacturer negligently attached the wheel to the axle.Irma wants to sue the Zenith manufacturer.Under which of the following causes of action can Irma sue the dealership?

Accepted Answer

Irma can sue under breach of warranty of merchantability and strict liability because the car was defective and not fit for ordinary use, and strict liability applies to defective products causing injury. Negligence would be against the manufacturer, not the dealership.

Quiz 14: Relationship of Tort Law to Contract Law