Question 1

The Supreme Court of California in Greenman v.Yuba Power led in adopting a general rule:

Accepted Answer

The answer of The Supreme Court of California in Greenman...

Question 2

The basis of the case in a(n)________________ case is the relationship between the manufacturer and the injured party.

Accepted Answer

The basis of the case in a product liability case, which is not listed among the options, is the relationship between the manufacturer and the injured party. None of the provided choices directly relate to this concept.

Question 3

For the doctrine of strict liability to apply:

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of strict liability holds manufacturers liable for any harm caused by their products, regardless of whether the consumer purchased the product directly from them or not. The other choices are incorrect because strict liability does not require the consumer to suffer life-threatening injuries, and it also applies even if the manufacturer did not intentionally misrepresent the product.

Question 4

In cases involving strict liability for product failure based on contract law,the basis of the case is the relationship between which of the following parties?

Accepted Answer

Strict liability for product failure based on contract law primarily concerns the relationship between the seller and the buyer, which is not explicitly listed among the provided options.

Question 5

The first major application of the doctrine of strict liability for consumer products was in the area of:

Accepted Answer

The answer of The first major application of the doctrine...

Question 6

The Supreme Court of California in Greenman v.Yuba Power led in adopting a general rule:

Accepted Answer

The court in Greenman v. Yuba Power adopted the general rule of imposing strict liability in tort. This means that a manufacturer can be held liable for any injuries or damages caused by their product, regardless of whether they were negligent or not. This is a significant departure from the traditional approach of requiring the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer.

Question 7

In Mazetti v.Armour,a court in 1913 held that a food producer must provide food safe for human consumption,even if there is no privity of contract.Liability was based on:

Accepted Answer

Mazetti v. Armour established the concept of implied warranty of safety, which holds food producers responsible for providing safe food for human consumption, even if there is no privity of contract between the producer and the consumer. This ruling established a strict liability standard for food producers.

Question 8

As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,misrepresentation about product quality in advertising may be the basis for:

Accepted Answer

Baxter v. Ford Motor established that misrepresentation about product quality in advertising can be the basis for strict liability, which holds manufacturers responsible for harm caused by their products regardless of fault or intent.

Question 9

In Henningsen v.Bloomfield Motors,a New Jersey court allowed a woman to recover damages for injuries she suffered because of brake failure on her husband's car.The theory that the court applied to find strict liability was:

Accepted Answer

The court applied the theory of strict liability, which is distinct from the options provided. Strict liability does not require proof of negligence, breach of contract, or any misuse of powers or clauses. It holds manufacturers accountable for damages caused by defective products regardless of fault.

Question 10

An affirmation of fact or promise made by a seller to a buyer that relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates a (an):

Accepted Answer

An affirmation of fact or promise made by a seller to a buyer that relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty. This means that the seller is warranting that the goods will meet a certain standard or level of performance as promised. This is different from an implied warranty, which is automatically assumed by law and does not require any specific promise or affirmation by the seller.

Question 11

As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,_____________ may be the basis for strict liability in tort.

Accepted Answer

The answer of As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter...

Question 12

As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,_____________ may be the basis for strict liability in tort.

Accepted Answer

The basis for strict liability in tort in this case is likely express warranty, as Ford had claimed that the windshield was shatterproof, but it was not. This falls under the category of product liability, where a manufacturer is held responsible for injuries caused by a product they have put into commerce, regardless of fault or negligence.

Question 13

In Henningsen v.Bloomfield Motors,a New Jersey court allowed a woman to recover damages for injuries she suffered because of brake failure on her husband's car.The theory that the court applied to find strict liability was:

Accepted Answer

The theory that the court applied was the implied warranty of safety. This means that the manufacturer of the car implicitly warranted that the car was safe for its intended use, and was therefore strictly liable for any injuries resulting from a defect in the car.

Question 14

In Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,Ford's liability was based on:

Accepted Answer

Ford's liability was based on misrepresentation in advertisements, as they had claimed their windshield to be shatterproof, but it was not, resulting in Baxter losing an eye.

Question 15

The basis of the case in a(n)________________ case is the relationship between the manufacturer and the injured party.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability cases hold manufacturers responsible for any harm caused by their products regardless of fault or intention. The relationship between the manufacturer and the injured party is the basis of the case.

Question 16

For the doctrine of strict liability to apply:

Accepted Answer

None of the other choices are correct. Strict liability is a legal principle that holds manufacturers responsible for harm caused by their products, regardless of fault or intention. It applies to any consumer who is injured by a product that is defective or unreasonably dangerous, regardless of whether they purchased it directly from the manufacturer and regardless of whether they misused it according to instructions. Injuries need not be life-threatening for strict liability to apply. And while intentional misrepresentations by the manufacturer may give rise to additional causes of action, they are not necessary for strict liability to apply.

Question 17

Strict liability may be imposed if you,the buyer,receive an oral or written statement about the quality of a good,that statement becomes part of your bargain with the manufacturer,and you suffer an injury because the statement was not accurate.This is known as:

Accepted Answer

This is known as an express warranty, which is a guarantee made by the seller about the quality, condition, or performance of the product. If the statement is false and the buyer suffers an injury as a result, the seller may be held strictly liable.

Question 18

In Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,Ford's liability was based on:

Accepted Answer

The answer of In Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an...

Question 19

The first major application of the doctrine of strict liability for consumer products was in the area of:

Accepted Answer

The first major application of the doctrine of strict liability for consumer products was in the area of food and drink, specifically in the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. in 1963. Paul Greenman suffered from injuries caused by a shop tool made by Yuba Power Products, and he sued the company on the grounds of negligence and breach of warranty. The California Supreme Court ruled that a manufacturer could be held strictly liable for injuries caused by its products, regardless of whether it had been negligent or had breached a warranty. This decision set a precedent for future cases and led to the development of strict liability law in product liability cases.

Question 20

As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,misrepresentation about product quality in advertising may be the basis for:

Accepted Answer

The answer of As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter...

Quiz 7: Business Torts and Product Liability

The Supreme Court of California in Greenman v.Yuba Power led in adopting a general rule:

The basis of the case in a(n) ________________ case is the relationship between the manufacturer and the injured party.

For the doctrine of strict liability to apply:

In cases involving strict liability for product failure based on contract law,the basis of the case is the relationship between which of the following parties?

The first major application of the doctrine of strict liability for consumer products was in the area of:

The Supreme Court of California in Greenman v.Yuba Power led in adopting a general rule:

In Mazetti v.Armour,a court in 1913 held that a food producer must provide food safe for human consumption,even if there is no privity of contract.Liability was based on:

As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,misrepresentation about product quality in advertising may be the basis for:

In Henningsen v.Bloomfield Motors,a New Jersey court allowed a woman to recover damages for injuries she suffered because of brake failure on her husband's car.The theory that the court applied to find strict liability was:

An affirmation of fact or promise made by a seller to a buyer that relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates a (an) :

As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,_____________ may be the basis for strict liability in tort.

As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,_____________ may be the basis for strict liability in tort.

In Henningsen v.Bloomfield Motors,a New Jersey court allowed a woman to recover damages for injuries she suffered because of brake failure on her husband's car.The theory that the court applied to find strict liability was:

In Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,Ford's liability was based on:

The basis of the case in a(n) ________________ case is the relationship between the manufacturer and the injured party.

For the doctrine of strict liability to apply:

Strict liability may be imposed if you,the buyer,receive an oral or written statement about the quality of a good,that statement becomes part of your bargain with the manufacturer,and you suffer an injury because the statement was not accurate.This is known as:

In Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,Ford's liability was based on:

The first major application of the doctrine of strict liability for consumer products was in the area of:

As seen in Baxter v.Ford Motor,where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed,misrepresentation about product quality in advertising may be the basis for: