Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

To win a product liability case based on strict liability, the plaintiff must prove that the product was in a defective condition when it was sold by the manufacturer, and that the defect caused the plaintiff's injuries. The other options (A, B, and D) are not necessary for Ty to prove in order to establish product liability based on strict liability.

Question 2

Bright n' Clean Company makes shampoo and other hair care products. Cub is injured by the use of a Bright n' Clean product and sues the company for product liability based on negligence. To win, Cub must show that

Accepted Answer

To successfully prove product liability based on negligence, Cub must show that Bright n' Clean failed to use due care in making the product, which caused his injury. The other options are not relevant in this case.

Question 3

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

Accepted Answer

The court may consider an available alternative design because this would show whether Recharge Corporation could have produced a safer battery, which would weigh in favor of Sol's argument that there was a design defect. The other options are not relevant to determining whether there was a design defect, as they do not directly relate to the specific battery in question.

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

Airsoft intentionally mislabeled its product to conceal a defect, which is an act of fraud. Bing relied on the mislabeling and suffered an injury. Therefore, Airsoft is most likely liable for fraud.

Question 5

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

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 6

Bedding Plus Inc. makes a pillow that Comfort Stuff sells to Demi. Bedding fails to exercise "due care," and Demi is injured by toxic material used as fill in the pillow. Comfort Stuff is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

Comfort Stuff may be liable for negligence because they have a duty to ensure that the products they sell are safe for their customers to use. They have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care in selecting the products that they sell, which may include investigating the safety of the products from their suppliers. If they fail to exercise due care, and a customer is injured as a result, they may be held liable for negligence.

Question 7

Sail-Away Corporation makes sailboards, which are distributed by Tropical Marketing 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

Under strict liability, any party in the distribution chain can be held liable for defects in the product. Therefore, Wen may recover from Sail-Away for manufacturing the defective product, Tropical for distributing the defective product, or UV Sports for selling the defective product.

Question 8

Bounce Company makes trampolines and other gym equipment. Chet files a product liability suit against Bounce, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold Bounce liable, the court may consider that a manufacturer has no duty to warn about risks that are

Accepted Answer

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

Question 9

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes soft drinks. Toby drinks a Soda beverage, which proves defective and injures him. One justification for holding Soda strictly liable for the harm caused to Toby is that

Accepted Answer

The justification for holding Soda strictly liable for the harm caused to Toby is that Soda is in a better position than Toby to bear the cost of her injury. As the manufacturer of the defective product, Soda is responsible for any harm caused to the consumer and has the financial resources to bear the cost of the injury. Strict liability holds manufacturers responsible for the safety of their products, regardless of whether they were negligent, and ensures that consumers are protected from harmful products.

Question 10

DIY-Haul, Inc., makes, sells, and leases hauling equipment for consumer use. Ed files a product liability suit against DIY-Haul, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider

Accepted Answer

When considering a product liability suit, the court will typically look at the expectations of the ordinary consumer. This means that they will consider whether the product met the reasonable expectations of a typical user, and whether any design defects caused harm or injury that could have been prevented. The court is less likely to consider the assumptions, intentions, or identity of the company, as these are not as relevant to the question of whether the product was defective.

Question 11

Chem Company and Dura Plastics Inc. make and distribute a certain toxic chemical that is discovered in the water supply of the county in which their plants are located. In a product liability suit against both makers, market-share liability may be imposed on

Accepted Answer

Market-share liability allows for the allocation of liability among multiple defendants based on their proportionate share of the relevant market, regardless of fault or causation. Therefore, both Chem Company and Dura Plastics Inc. can be held liable in this situation.

Question 12

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

Accepted Answer

The growth of the equipment's sales is not directly related to the exercise of due care with respect to product design and manufacturing. The other options (inspection of purchased components, selection of materials, assembly and testing) all relate to the design, production, and quality control processes that are key to exercising due care in manufacturing and selling a safe product.

Question 13

Fit Corporation makes running shoes. Gaby, a marathoner, files a product liability suit against Fit, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the company liable, the court may consider an alternative design's

Accepted Answer

The court may consider an alternative design's advantages and disadvantages to determine if there was a design defect in the original product. Popularity among consumers, weight and heft, and aesthetics are not relevant factors in determining a design defect.

Question 14

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

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit, a court would use a risk-utility analysis to determine whether a risk of harm outweighs the product's utility to the users and the public. This analysis takes into account factors such as the likelihood and severity of harm, feasibility of a safer design, and the social utility of the product. Ultimately, the court will weigh these factors to determine whether the product was unreasonably dangerous and whether the manufacturer should be held liable for any resulting harm.

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

Under product liability laws, liability for injuries or damage caused by a product can extend to the manufacturer (MC), the retailer (National Sales Company), and the lessor (Open Road Inc.) of the product. This is because all parties in the distribution chain can potentially be held responsible for selling or leasing a defective product that causes harm.

Question 16

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

Accepted Answer

Strict product liability holds a manufacturer strictly liable for any injuries caused by defects in its product. In this case, Cold Play's snowmobile had a defect that caused it to unexpectedly accelerate, leading to Dale's injuries. Since Dale was driving the vehicle, he can hold Cold Play liable for his injuries under strict product liability. Additionally, Esty was injured when the unmanned vehicle struck her, which was a direct result of the defect in the product. Therefore, Cold Play may also be liable to Esty under strict product liability.

Question 17

EquiMeds Company and GenDrugs Inc. make and distribute prescription drugs. In a product-liability suit against both parties, the court is most likely to impose market-share liability if it cannot be proved which of the parties

Accepted Answer

Market-share liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover damages from multiple manufacturers of the same product based on their proportionate share of the market when it is impossible to determine which manufacturer's product caused the injury. This approach is most applicable when the court cannot establish which party supplied the specific product that resulted in harm.

Question 18

Grill Time Inc. makes commercial cooking appliances, including a grill in use by Haute Cuisine Food Cart. Inez, a Haute employee, is injured when the grill malfunctions. If the injury occurred as a result of a misrepresentation about the product, Grill Time is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

If the injury occurred as a result of a misrepresentation about the product, such as Grill Time knowingly lying about the safety of the grill, Grill Time would likely be liable for fraud. Fraud requires a misrepresentation of material fact, knowledge of its falsity, intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and proximate causation. Negligence implies a lack of due care, privity concerns contractual relationships, and puffery involves exaggerated claims that would not typically be taken seriously by a reasonable consumer.

Question 19

Sea Wind Corporation makes boats. Teresa files a product liability suit against Sea Wind, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider an alternative design's

Accepted Answer

The court may consider an alternative design's effect on Sea Wind's boat to determine if the original design was defective and if a safer, feasible, and practical alternative was available that would have prevented the harm.

Question 20

Ceramic Corporation makes commercial ceramic products, including heat-resistant tiles for industrial ovens. When damage occurs in an oven at Duramold Inc., strict product liability may be imposed on Ceramic if the tiles sold to Duramold were

Accepted Answer

Strict product liability holds manufacturers responsible for injuries caused by defective products. To be held liable, the product must be in a defective condition that was the proximate cause of the injuries. If the tiles sold by Ceramic Corporation were defective and caused the damage to Duramold Inc.'s oven, then Ceramic may be held strictly liable for the damage. Choice A is incorrect because perfect condition alone does not determine liability. Choice B is incorrect because if the damage was caused by the use of the tiles in a foreseeable manner, then Ceramic may still be held liable for the damage. Choice C is incorrect because any substantial change after sale would likely relieve Ceramic of liability, but this is not relevant to the situation described.

Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability