Question 1

Cold Play Corporation makes snowmobiles.Dale is injured when a defect unexpectedly accelerates the Cold Play vehicle he is driving,and he is thrown off.Esty,a hiker standing in the path of the unmanned vehicle,is struck and injured.In a suit based on strict product liability,Cold Play may be liable to
A) Dale and Esty.
B) Dale only.
C) Esty only.
D) none of the parties.

Accepted Answer

Strict product liability holds manufacturers liable for injuries caused by defects in their products. In this scenario, Dale was injured due to a defect in the Cold Play vehicle he was driving, while Esty was injured as a result of the unmanned vehicle. Therefore, Cold Play may be liable to both Dale and Esty.

Question 2

EZ Co-op Inc.sells Fill-Up cattle feed to ranchers.Gina buys and feeds Fill-Up to her herd.The feed is poisoned.Gina sues EZ for product liability based on negligence.To win,Gina must show
A) why the feed was poisoned.
B) how the feed became poisoned.
C) that the feed caused her damage.
D) all of the choices.

Accepted Answer

C) Gina must demonstrate that the poisoned feed caused her damage to win a product liability case based on negligence. This involves proving that the feed directly resulted in harm to her cattle, which is a key element in negligence claims.

Question 3

Motor Corporation (MC)makes cars and trucks.National Sales Company sells all MC vehicles.Open Road Inc.leases only the cars.Under product liability laws,liability for injuries or damage caused by an MC vehicle may be imposed on
A) MC only.
B) none of the parties.
C) MC or National Sales only.
D) MC,National Sales,or Open Road.

Accepted Answer

According to the scenario, MC is the manufacturer of the vehicles, National Sales Company sells them, and Open Road Inc. leases only the cars. As per the product liability laws, any injuries or damage caused by an MC vehicle can impose liability on any of the parties involved in the distribution chain, including the manufacturer (MC), the seller (National Sales Company), and the lessor (Open Road Inc.). Therefore, MC, National Sales, or Open Road can be held liable for any injuries or damage caused by an MC vehicle.

Question 4

Recharge Corporation makes batteries.Sol is injured when the Recharge battery in his phone bursts into flame.In Sol's product liability suit against the maker,alleging a design defect,the court may consider
A) Recharge's knowledge of the uses of its battery.
B) Recharge's share of its market.
C) Recharge's advertising.
D) an available alternative design.

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit based on a design defect, the court will consider whether an alternative design was available that would have reduced or eliminated the risk of harm. The other options (A, B, and C) are not directly relevant to the design defect claim.

Question 5

Airsoft,Inc.makes toys.Airsoft intentionally mislabels its packaged products to conceal a defect.Trusting and relying on the mislabeling,Bing buys an Airsoft product and suffers an injury.Airsoft is most likely liable for
A) product misuse.
B) fraud.
C) privity of contract.
D) comparative negligence.

Accepted Answer

Airsoft intentionally mislabeling its products to conceal a defect is an act of fraud. Bing, who trusted and relied on the mislabeling, suffered an injury, and Airsoft is, therefore, liable for fraud.

Question 6

Cultivator Inc.designs and makes tractors,balers,and other farm equipment.In a product liability suit based on negligence,Cultivator could be liable for failing to exercise due care with respect to all of the following except
A) the inspection of components purchased to use in the equipment.
B) the selection of materials used to make the equipment.
C) the assembly and testing of the equipment.
D) the growth of the equipment's sales.

Accepted Answer

The growth of the equipment's sales is not related to the exercise of due care and therefore is not a factor in determining product liability based on negligence. However, the inspection of components purchased, selection of materials, assembly, and testing of equipment are all important factors in exercising due care and ensuring that the product is safe for use.

Question 7

Steps & Rungs Inc.makes ladders.Ty discovers that his Steps & Rungs ladder is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on strict liability.To win,Ty must show that
A) Ty bought the ladder from Steps & Rungs.
B) all of the choices.
C) the ladder was in a defective condition when Steps & Rungs sold it.
D) Ty is normally engaged in the business use of ladders.

Accepted Answer

To win a product liability lawsuit based on strict liability, the plaintiff (Ty) must prove three things: that the product was in a defective condition when it left the hands of the defendant (Steps & Rungs), that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect caused the plaintiff's injuries. It is not necessary for Ty to show that he normally uses ladders in his business or that he purchased the ladder directly from Steps & Rungs.

Question 8

Data Analytics,Inc. ,and eProducts Corporation market competing software products.Data Analytics launches an ad campaign claiming that eProducts,instead of testing software before it is marketed,has customers "test" the software by using it.eProducts knows this is not true but begins to lose sales to Data Analytics.On what ground could eProducts sue Data Analytics for injury to eProducts' reputation?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Data Analytics,Inc. ,and eProducts Corporation market competing...

Question 9

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

Since Baby Things failed to exercise "due care" in making the crib safe, they are most likely liable for negligence. Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing injury or damage to another person. Fraud and misrepresentation require intentional deception, which is not present in this scenario. Strict liability typically applies in cases involving inherently dangerous products, which may not be applicable in this case.

Question 10

Insulate Inc.makes and sells fire-retardant building materials.In a product liability suit against Insulate,a court would use a risk-utility analysis of the company's product as designed to determine whether
A) a risk of harm outweighs the products' utility to the users and the public.
B) the product performed as a consumer would reasonably expect.
C) the product is as useful and as risky as the public expects.
D) the risk of return on investment in the product supports its utility.

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit, the court would consider the risk posed by the product against its utility. The court would determine if the risk of harm outweighs the usefulness of the product to the user and the public. This is known as a risk-utility analysis. Therefore, choice A is the best answer.

Question 11

Do-It-Rite Inc.makes and markets tools.Evan uses a Do-It-Rite power screwdriver to scrape grout-a purpose for which it was not intended-and is injured when the tool slips.Evan files a product liability suit against the maker.The defendant's best defense is most likely
A) commonly known danger.
B) assumption of risk.
C) inadequate warning.
D) product misuse.

Accepted Answer

The best defense for the defendant in this case would be product misuse, as Evan used the power screwdriver for a purpose for which it was not intended. The defendant can argue that the injury was not a result of a defect in the tool itself, but rather due to Evan's misuse of the product.

Question 12

Meg is shopping in Nate's Hardware Store when a nail gun in use by Ovid,one of the store's employees,fires without warning and hits Meg in the leg.Nate checks the gun and discovers that it was assembled improperly.Meg files a suit against Power Tools Inc. ,the maker of the gun,on the ground of strict product liability.What are the elements for an action based on strict product liability? In whose favor is the court likely to rule and why?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Meg is shopping in Nate's Hardware Store...

Quiz 5: Torts and Product Liability

EZ Co-op Inc.sells Fill-Up cattle feed to ranchers.Gina buys and feeds Fill-Up to her herd.The feed is poisoned.Gina sues EZ for product liability based on negligence.To win,Gina must show

Motor Corporation (MC) makes cars and trucks.National Sales Company sells all MC vehicles.Open Road Inc.leases only the cars.Under product liability laws,liability for injuries or damage caused by an MC vehicle may be imposed on

Recharge Corporation makes batteries.Sol is injured when the Recharge battery in his phone bursts into flame.In Sol's product liability suit against the maker,alleging a design defect,the court may consider

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

Cultivator Inc.designs and makes tractors,balers,and other farm equipment.In a product liability suit based on negligence,Cultivator could be liable for failing to exercise due care with respect to all of the following except

Steps & Rungs Inc.makes ladders.Ty discovers that his Steps & Rungs ladder is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on strict liability.To win,Ty must show that

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

Insulate Inc.makes and sells fire-retardant building materials.In a product liability suit against Insulate,a court would use a risk-utility analysis of the company's product as designed to determine whether

Do-It-Rite Inc.makes and markets tools.Evan uses a Do-It-Rite power screwdriver to scrape grout-a purpose for which it was not intended-and is injured when the tool slips.Evan files a product liability suit against the maker.The defendant's best defense is most likely