Question 1

Touch Screens Inc. makes and markets tablets. When problems develop with Touch products or sales, the company may be liable in product liability for any of the following except

Accepted Answer

An ineffective marketing plan is not a basis for product liability. Product liability typically involves issues directly related to the safety and functionality of the product itself, such as manufacturing defects, design defects, and inadequate warnings, not the strategies used for selling the product.

Question 2

Petro Parts Inc. makes and sells parts for the repair of motor vehicles. Olsen suffers a loss when a defective Petro part causes damage to her car's engine. With respect to Olsen's product liability suit against Petro, an applicable statute of repose

Accepted Answer

A statute of repose places an outer time limit on when a lawsuit can be filed, regardless of when the injury was discovered.

Question 3

Safe-T Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for electronic devices. Tina files a product liability suit against Safe-T, alleging a warning defect. In deciding whether to hold Safe-T liable, the court may consider

Accepted Answer

The court may consider the obvious risks of the product in question to determine if a warning defect exists. If the risks are deemed obvious, the manufacturer may not be held liable for failing to warn.

Question 4

Epsilon Corporation makes scientific instruments that are subject to extensive government regulation and undergo a rigorous premarket approval process. In a design defect product liability suit against Epsilon by a party allegedly injured by one of the devices, the company can most successfully raise the defense of

Accepted Answer

Preemption is the most successful defense in this context because federal law regulating the approval of medical devices can preempt state law claims for design defects, meaning that if the device was approved by a government agency following rigorous standards, the manufacturer might argue that federal regulations take precedence over state laws under which the product liability suit is filed.

Question 5

Overland Corporation makes trucks. The brakes on Pho's Overland truck malfunction, but he continues to drive it. Unable to slow down, the truck crashes through a guardrail and careens off the road. In Pho's product liability suit against Overland, the defendant can assert the defense of

Accepted Answer

The defense of "assumption of risk" applies because Pho continued to drive the truck despite knowing that the brakes were malfunctioning, thereby assuming the risk of any resulting harm.

Question 6

Rev Motor Company buys plugs and points from Sparkplugs Inc. and puts them in Rev vehicles without changing their composition. If the parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects may be

Accepted Answer

Rev Motor Company and Sparkplugs Inc. would both be strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects since Rev incorporates the parts into their vehicles without altering them, and Sparkplugs Inc. is the manufacturer of the defective parts. Strict liability in product liability cases often applies to both the manufacturer of the defective part and the manufacturer of the final product that incorporates the defective part.

Question 7

Stents Inc. makes medical devices. Toni files a product liability suit against Stents, alleging a warning defect with respect to its device. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider whether

Accepted Answer

The omission of a warning can render a device not reasonably safe, which is a key factor in determining liability in a product liability suit for a warning defect.

Question 8

Grass Green Company makes and sells hedge trimmers, which are designed to be safe if used properly. Hazel buys a Grass Green trimmer and lends it to her neighbor Ike. In his garage, Ike is using the trimmer as a prod to dislodge a box from a high shelf when the trimmer suddenly engages. Startled, Ike drops the trimmer, which swings around and cuts his leg. Ike files a product liability suit against Grass Green, on the ground of negligence. On what basis could the manufacturer prevail?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Grass Green Company makes and sells hedge...

Question 9

Stan, an air conditioning and heating technician, files suit against Temp-Set Corporation, alleging that its thermostats are unreasonably dangerous due to the possibility of electrical shock while being installed. Temp-Set's best defense is most likely

Accepted Answer

The "knowledgeable user" defense is most appropriate here because it argues that a professional installer, like Stan, would or should be aware of the inherent risks involved in installing thermostats, including the risk of electrical shock. This defense relies on the premise that certain products are designed for use by professionals who are presumed to have specialized knowledge or training that informs them of the product's risks.

Question 10

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

Accepted Answer

The best defense for Do-It-Rite Inc. is product misuse, as Evan was using the power screwdriver for a purpose (scraping grout) for which it was not intended, leading to his injury.

Question 11

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...

Question 12

Opal is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Plank Company-made ceiling beam. At the time, Opal is not wearing any safety gear. In Opal's product liability suit against Plank, the company can most successfully raise the defense of

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence can be a successful defense in this scenario because it involves the injured party (Opal) having potentially contributed to her own injuries by not wearing any safety gear, which is a standard safety protocol on construction sites. This defense argues that the damages should be reduced based on the plaintiff's share of fault.

Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability