Question 1

Which of the following allows the filing of a lawsuit previously barred by the running of the statute of limitations?

Accepted Answer

A revival statute allows the filing of a lawsuit that was previously barred by the running of the statute of limitations. This law revives the right to sue, essentially restarting the statute of limitations clock. However, such laws are not universally accepted and may be unconstitutional in some jurisdictions.

Question 2

In regard to successor liability,courts applying the __________ look for constancy between the buyer and seller to determine whether the successor company is essentially a mere continuation or reincarnation of the predecessor entity.

Accepted Answer

The continuity-of-enterprise approach is used by courts to determine successor liability by looking for constancy between the buyer and seller, considering factors such as whether the new company is essentially a mere continuation or reincarnation of the predecessor entity. The other options (A, B, and C) are not specifically relevant to the definition or application of the continuity-of-enterprise approach.

Question 3

Following several injuries,a manufacturer of a chain saw installed an additional safety guard.In a lawsuit based on product liability,which of the following is the company's best position in opposition to a plaintiff's efforts to introduce evidence of the modification?

Accepted Answer

The best position for the company to take would be that the modification was a subsequent remedial measure taken to improve the safety of the product, and therefore any evidence of the modification should be excluded under the subsequent remedial measure rule. This rule prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by a defendant after an accident or injury has occurred.

Question 4

A statute of __________ prevents recovery for product injuries by limiting the time period for recovery from the date when the injury occurred.

Accepted Answer

A statute of limitations prevents recovery for product injuries by limiting the time period for recovery from the date when the injury occurred.

Question 5

In an extreme case,a judge may set aside a jury verdict on causation grounds,if:

Accepted Answer

If no reasonable person could have deemed the failure to warn a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, then the judge may set aside a jury verdict. The other options relate to the adequacy of the warning itself, but causation is the key factor in determining the outcome of a lawsuit.

Question 6

The preemption defense involves certain __________,which set minimum safety standards for products.

Accepted Answer

The preemption defense involves federal laws, as they establish minimum safety standards for products and therefore preempt any conflicting state laws or regulations.

Question 7

Under the doctrine of __________,the plaintiff's damages in a strict liability action may be reduced by the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury.

Accepted Answer

Under the doctrine of comparative fault, the plaintiff's damages in a strict liability action may be reduced by the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury. This means that if the plaintiff is found to have contributed to their own injury in some way, their damages will be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. This is different from the doctrine of contributory negligence, which bars recovery entirely if the plaintiff is found to have any degree of fault. The doctrine of assumption of risk is also related to negligence, but it applies when the plaintiff voluntarily assumes a known risk and decides to undertake the activity anyway.

Question 8

In regard to strict liability in tort,which of the following is true in the case of a seller of used goods?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In regard to strict liability in tort,which...

Question 9

In which of the following cases would a manufacturer or seller be held liable for a user's injuries?

Accepted Answer

In this scenario, the manufacturer or seller may be held liable because the user's injury resulted from an unusual use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. In option A, since the user was considered a sophisticated user at the time of use, they may assume the risk of harm associated with the product. In option B, if the misuse of the product was unforeseeable by the manufacturer, they may not be held liable. In option C, if the user was a sophisticated user, they may assume the risk of harm associated with the product.

Question 10

To prove __________ in a product liability case,the injured party must show that the defendant did not use reasonable care in the design or manufacture of its product.

Accepted Answer

Negligence is the legal theory that requires the injured party to prove that the defendant did not use reasonable care in designing or manufacturing their product. Strict liability and breach of warranty focus on the product's defectiveness or failure to meet a warranty, whereas negligence centers on the defendant's conduct.

Question 11

Which of the following is true under the UCC regarding the requirement of privity in a breach of warranty action?

Accepted Answer

The UCC provides alternate provisions regarding privity, allowing states to choose the level of protection they wish to extend beyond those in direct privity with the seller.

Question 12

Which of the following is NOT a theory on which a product liability claim can be based?

Accepted Answer

Ultrahazardous activity is not a theory on which a product liability claim can be based. The theories on which a product liability claim can be based include negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. Ultrahazardous activity refers to activities that are so inherently dangerous that the person or entity responsible for them may be held strictly liable for any resulting harm or injury. It is not related to product liability claims.

Question 13

If a product valuable to society is unavoidably unsafe,the __________ determines whether the dangerous product is also defective.

Accepted Answer

The adequacy of the warning label is crucial in determining whether a product that is unavoidably unsafe is also considered defective. If the product has adequate warnings that inform the user of the potential risks, it may not be deemed defective despite its inherent dangers.

Question 14

A person voluntarily and unreasonably assumes the risk of a known danger regarding a product.In such a case the manufacturer is not liable for any resulting injury,based on the doctrine of:

Accepted Answer

The doctrine referred to in the statement is assumption of risk, which relieves the manufacturer of liability when the consumer voluntarily and unreasonably assumes the risk of a known danger regarding the product. Comparative negligence and contributory negligence both involve a partial apportionment of liability between the plaintiff and defendant, whereas assumption of harm is not a recognized legal doctrine.

Question 15

A __________ cuts off the right to assert a cause of action after a specified period of time from the delivery of the product or the completion of the work.

Accepted Answer

A statute of repose is a specific type of statute of limitations that establishes an absolute deadline for bringing certain types of legal actions. In contrast to a statute of limitations, which may be tolled or extended in certain circumstances, a statute of repose begins to run at a fixed point in time (often the date of a specific event, such as the completion of construction or delivery of a product) and runs for a specified period of time (often several years). Once the statute of repose has expired, no further lawsuits may be brought regardless of when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury or damage.

Question 16

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a "no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system" to resolve claims that individuals were injured by certain vaccines,which is based on:

Accepted Answer

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is based on the concept that there is a societal value in using vaccines, which are considered unavoidably unsafe products. This means that while vaccines are crucial for public health, there is an acceptance that in rare cases, they may cause adverse reactions. The program provides a way to compensate individuals who are injured by vaccines without needing to prove negligence or fault by the vaccine manufacturer.

Question 17

Which of the following is NOT a rationale of strict product liability?

Accepted Answer

The rationale of strict liability is to ensure that manufacturers and sellers bear the costs of injuries caused by their products, regardless of whether they acted negligently or intentionally. Therefore, option C is not a rationale of strict liability, as it suggests that negligence is not a factor in determining liability.

Question 18

On a failure-to-warn claim,adequate warnings and instructions for a product's safe use can shield a manufacturer from liability for a:

Accepted Answer

A failure-to-warn claim typically applies to defects in the warnings or instructions accompanying a properly manufactured and designed product. Therefore, if a manufacturer provides adequate warnings and instructions for the safe use of the product, it can shield them from liability, regardless of whether the product was defectively designed or defectively manufactured.

Question 19

Which of the following is NOT true regarding product liability in the European Union according to the European Union product liability directive?

Accepted Answer

The European Union product liability directive does not apply to services; it specifically targets the liability of defective products. Services are not covered under this directive.

Question 20

A product that was sold without a component part properly fastened to the product is an example of a __________ defect.

Accepted Answer

A manufacturing defect refers to a mistake made during the production process that results in a product being different from its intended design. In this case, the component part not being fastened properly was a mistake made during production, making it a manufacturing defect.

Quiz 10: Product-Liability