Question 1

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
A)popularity among boat designers.
B)attractiveness to boat buyers.
C)frequency of use among boat makers.
D)effect on Sea Wind's boat.

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 2

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
A)the assumptions of DIY-Haul.
B)the identity of DIY-Haul's owner.
C)the intentions of DIY-Haul.
D)the expectations of the ordinary consumer.

Accepted Answer

The court will consider the expectations of the ordinary consumer when deciding on a product liability suit alleging a design defect. This involves evaluating whether the product meets the safety expectations of an average user, which is a key factor in such cases.

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

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 4

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
A)only the party who realized the most profit from the use of the chemical.
B)only the party with the largest market share.
C)both parties.
D)only the party who most aggressively marketed its product.

Accepted Answer

Market-share liability allows for all manufacturers of a harmful product to be held liable based on their proportion of the market share. This means both Chem Company and Dura Plastics Inc. can be held liable, regardless of their individual profits, market share, or marketing strategies.

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's intentional mislabeling to conceal a defect, which led Bing to suffer an injury after relying on the mislabeling, constitutes fraud. This is because Airsoft deceived Bing by misrepresenting the condition of the product.

Question 6

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

A risk-utility analysis involves weighing the product's risks against its benefits or utility to determine if the risks are justified. This is a common approach in product liability cases to assess whether a product's design is unreasonably dangerous.

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 case based on strict liability, Ty must prove that the product (in this case, the ladder) was in a defective condition at the time it was sold by Steps & Rungs. The focus is on the condition of the product, not on the actions of the manufacturer or the specific relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer.

Question 8

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
A)in perfect condition at the time of their sale.
B)damaged by their use.
C)substantially changed after their sale.
D)in a defective condition that was the proximate cause of the damage.

Accepted Answer

Strict product liability applies when a product is sold in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous and causes injury or damage. If the tiles were defective and that defect caused the damage, Ceramic Corporation could be held liable.

Question 9

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
A)misrepresentation.
B)none of the choices.
C)negligence.
D)product misuse.

Accepted Answer

Comfort Stuff could be liable for negligence if they failed to ensure the safety of the product they sold, even though Bedding Plus Inc. manufactured it.

Question 10

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
A)Bright n' Clean failed to use due care in making the product.
B)Bright n' Clean recklessly disregarded facts in its ad copy.
C)Cub was not a hair care professional, such as a barber.
D)Cub was in privity with Bright n' Clean.

Accepted Answer

To win a product liability case based on negligence, Cub must demonstrate that Bright n' Clean failed to use due care in the making of the product, which led to his injury. This involves showing that the company did not exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, or inspection of the product to ensure it was safe for use.

Question 11

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

The court may consider an available alternative design to determine if the product was defectively designed and if a safer, feasible alternative was available at the time of production.

Question 12

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
A)was in privity with the injured plaintiff.
B)exercised the least amount of due care in making the product.
C)supplied the particular product that caused the injury.
D)holds the largest share of the market for the product.

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 13

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

In strict product liability cases, a manufacturer can be held liable for injuries caused by a defective product to any user or bystander, as long as the product was used in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. Since Dale was operating the vehicle and Esty was a bystander, both were injured as a result of the defect, making Cold Play potentially liable to both.

Question 14

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
A)avoidable by an alternative design.
B)foreseeable.
C)contrary to the instructions for the use of the product.
D)obvious.

Accepted Answer

A manufacturer is generally not required to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known, as users are presumed to be aware of these risks. This principle reduces the burden on manufacturers to warn about every potential risk, especially those that are evident to the average user.

Question 15

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
A)Soda is in a better position than Toby to bear the cost of her injury.
B)Toby is a consumer, not a corporation.
C)making products is an abnormally dangerous activity.
D)Soda and Toby are in privity.

Accepted Answer

Soda Bubbles Corporation, as the manufacturer, is in a better position to bear the cost of injuries caused by its defective products, often through insurance, spreading the cost over many products. This principle underlies strict liability in product liability cases, where manufacturers are held liable for harm caused by defective products regardless of fault.

Question 16

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
A)negligence.
B)fraud.
C)privity.
D)puffery.

Accepted Answer

Fraud involves intentional misrepresentation of material fact, which leads another to act to their detriment. If Grill Time Inc. made false statements about the grill's safety or capabilities, and those statements led to Inez's injury, the company could be liable for fraud.

Question 17

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 18

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
A)Sail-Away only.
B)Sail-Away, Tropical, or UV Sports.
C)UV Sports only.
D)none of the choices.

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit based on strict liability, Wen may recover from any party in the distribution chain, including the manufacturer (Sail-Away), the distributor (Tropical), and the retailer (UV Sports). This is because strict liability holds all parties involved in the sale of a defective product responsible, regardless of fault.

Question 19

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

Cultivator Inc. could be liable for negligence in the inspection of components, selection of materials, and assembly and testing of the equipment as these are directly related to the safety and functionality of the products they manufacture. However, the growth of the equipment's sales is not related to the exercise of due care in the manufacturing process and therefore would not be a basis for liability in a product liability suit based on negligence.

Question 20

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
A)popularity among consumers.
B)weight and heft.
C)aesthetics.
D)advantages and disadvantages.

Accepted Answer

The court will consider an alternative design's advantages and disadvantages to determine if the original design was defective and if there was a safer, feasible alternative that could have been used instead. This assessment helps in evaluating whether the company could have avoided the alleged defect.

Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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