Question 1

Custom Ceramics Corporation makes ceramic products for commercial uses, including heat-resistant tiles for industrial ovens. When damage occurs in an oven at Duramold Plastics, Inc., liability may be imposed on Custom Ceramics 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

If the tiles sold to Duramold were in a defective condition that was the proximate cause of the damage, then liability may be imposed on Custom Ceramics. Perfect condition at the time of sale, damage by their use, or substantial changes after their sale may not necessarily place liability on Custom Ceramics.

Question 2

MedBeat Inc., makes medical devices, including heart pacemakers. Nina, a heart patient, files a product liabil-ity suit against MedBeat, alleging a warning defect with respect to its pacemaker. In deciding whether to hold MedBeat liable, the court may consider whether there is a foreseeable risk of harm posed by the pacemaker and
A) ​the omission of a warning renders the pacemaker not reasonably safe.
B) there is a reasonable alternative design.
C) ​MedBeat did not use due care in making the pacemaker.
D) Nina lacks insurance coverage.

Accepted Answer

The court will consider whether the omission of a warning renders the pacemaker not reasonably safe. This is because a warning defect could make the product unreasonably dangerous, and if the harm was foreseeable, the manufacturer could be liable for any resulting injuries. The other options are not directly relevant to the question of whether there was a warning defect.

Question 3

Good Cookin' Products Company makes heat convection ovens. Heidi discovers that her Good Cookin' oven is defective and sues the maker for product liabil-ity based on strict liability. To win, Heidi must show that she
A) bought the oven from Good Cookin'.
B) did not misuse the oven.
C) suffered an injury caused by the defect.
D) did not know of the defect.

Accepted Answer

To win a product liability case based on strict liability, the plaintiff must prove that they suffered an injury caused by the defect. The other factors, such as buying the product from the manufacturer, not misusing it, and not knowing about the defect, may be relevant but are not necessary for strict liability.

Question 4

AgriGro, Inc., sells hybrid seed to farms and other agricultural enterprises. Brandon buys and plants AgriGro seed on his Country Farm, but no crop grows because the seed is defective. Brandon sues AgriGro for product liability based on negligence. To win, Brandon must show that
A) AgriGro sold the seed to Brandon.
B) Brandon knew and appreciated the risk caused by the defect.
C) Brandon suffered damage caused by the defect.
D) the "defect" was a commonly known danger.

Accepted Answer

To win the product liability case based on negligence, Brandon must show that he suffered damage caused by the defect. The other options are not necessary to establish negligence.

Question 5

Sailaway Corporation makes sailboards, which are bought and distributed by Tropical Marketing Company to UV Sports Stores, Inc., which sells them to consumers. Wen is in-jured while using a Sailaway board that he bought from UV Sports. In a product liabil-ity suit based on strict li-ability, Wen may recover from
A) Sailaway only.
B) Sailaway, Tropical, or UV Sports.
C) UV Sports only.
D) ​none of the choices.

Accepted Answer

Under strict liability, all parties in the distribution chain can be held liable for the defective product. In this case, Wen can recover from Sailaway (the manufacturer), Tropical Marketing (the distributor), or UV Sports Stores (the retailer) if any or all of them are found to have contributed to the defect in the sailboard that caused the injury.

Question 6

Street Bikes, Inc., makes and sells a bicycle to Theo. Street Bikes fails to exercise "due care" to make the bicycle safe, however, and Theo is injured as a result. Street Bikes is most likely liable for
A) assumption of risk.
B) commonly known danger.
C) negligence.
D) ​product misuse.

Accepted Answer

Street Bikes, Inc. is likely liable for negligence since they failed to exercise "due care" to make the bicycle safe, resulting in injury to Theo. Assumption of risk, commonly known danger, and product misuse would not apply in this scenario based on the given facts.

Question 7

Brandname Parts, Inc., makes and sells parts for the repair of major appliances. Clarice suffers a loss when a defective Brandname part in her freezer fails to keep the contents fresh. A statute restricts the time within which Clarice may file a product liability suit once she has discovered or should have discovered the damage. This is a statute of
A) limitations.
B) preemption.
C) repose.
D) suspension.

Accepted Answer

A statute of limitations restricts the time within which a lawsuit may be filed after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the damage. This is different from a statute of repose, which restricts the time within which a lawsuit may be filed after a certain event (such as the sale of the product) regardless of when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the damage. Preemption refers to a situation where federal law preempts or overrides state law, and suspension refers to a temporary delay or pause in legal proceedings.

Question 8

Arrow Straight Corporation makes archery supplies. While using an Arrow Straight bow, Jamie is injured due to a defect in the bow that causes an arrow to misfire. Kaley, another archer standing by, is also injured. In a product liability suit based on strict product liability, Arrow Straight may be liable to
A) Jamie and Kaley.
B) Jamie only.
C) Kaley only.
D) no one.

Accepted Answer

Under strict product liability, the manufacturer is liable for any injuries caused by a defective product, regardless of whether they were negligent or not. In this case, Arrow Straight may be liable for the injuries suffered by both Jamie and Kaley due to the defect in the bow.

Question 9

ClearCall Corporation makes phones, which are sold to consumers by DefDeals stores. Erna files a product liabil-ity suit against ClearCall, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold ClearCall liable, the court may consider
A) Erna's intended use for the phone.
B) DefDeals' method of accounting.
C) ClearCall's quality control efforts.
D) an available alternative design.

Accepted Answer

An available alternative design is relevant in determining liability for a design defect, as it can show whether the manufacturer took reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the product. Erna's intended use, DefDeals' accounting method, and ClearCall's quality control efforts are not directly relevant to the issue of a design defect.

Question 10

Global Insulation Company makes and sells fire-retardant building materials.To determine whether the risk of harm from the products as designed outweigh their utility to the users and the public, most courts would engage in
A) a risk-utility analysis.
B) a consumer-expectations test.
C) a critical, statistical analysis.
D) a marketing test.

Accepted Answer

Most courts would engage in a risk-utility analysis to determine whether the risk of harm from the fire-retardant building materials designed and sold by Global Insulation Company outweighs their utility to the users and the public. This analysis involves weighing the risks and benefits of the product to determine if it is unreasonably dangerous. A consumer-expectations test, critical statistical analysis, and marketing test may also be used in some cases, but a risk-utility analysis is the most common approach.

Question 11

Meds Company, Oral Med Corporation, and Pharma, Inc., are drug makers. In a suit against all of these parties in which market-share li-ability is imposed, most likely to be liable are
A) none of these parties.
B) the party with the largest market share.
C) all of these parties.
D) the parties whose market shares are equal.

Accepted Answer

In a market-share liability case, liability is assigned to each defendant based on their proportionate market share of the relevant market. Therefore, the party with the largest market share would be most likely to be held liable for the harm caused to the plaintiff. The other defendants may also be held liable based on their respective market shares, but to a lesser extent.

Question 12

BioChem Corporation, ChemCo Company, and DexLabs Inc. make and distribute toxic chemicals. In a product-liability suit against all of these parties, the court is most likely to impose market-share li-ability 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

The answer of BioChem Corporation, ChemCo Company, and DexLabs Inc....

Question 13

Fleet Feet Corporation makes athletic shoes. Gloria, a marathoner, files a product liabil-ity suit against Fleet Feet, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold Fleet Feet liable, the court may consider an alternative design's
A) popularity among industrial designers and consumers.
B) weight and heft.
C) aesthetics.
D) advantages and disadvantages.

Accepted Answer

The court needs to determine whether Fleet Feet had a duty to design a product that was free from defects and whether the design defect was the proximate cause of Gloria's injury. In making these determinations, the court may consider whether there was an alternative design that would have prevented the harm without substantially impairing the product's utility. Therefore, the advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design are the most relevant factors in this case.

Question 14

SmartTalk, Inc., makes and markets cell phones and related accessories. When problems develop with SmartTalk products or sales, the company may be liable in product liability for any of the following except
A) a manufacturing defect.
B) a design defect.
C) an inadequate warning.
D) an ineffective marketing plan.

Accepted Answer

Product liability can arise from manufacturing defects, design defects, or inadequate warning or labeling. However, an ineffective marketing plan is not a valid basis for product liability.

Question 15

Fine Motor Company buys auto parts from General Mechanix, Inc., and puts them in its vehicles without changing their composition. If the parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects are
A) Fine Motor only.
B) no one.
C) Fine Motor and General Mechanix.
D) General Mechanix only.

Accepted Answer

Under strict liability, both the manufacturer/supplier (General Mechanix) and the seller (Fine Motor) could be held liable for any damages caused by the defective auto parts. Since Fine Motor did not alter the composition of the parts and simply put them in their vehicles, they cannot be solely held liable. Therefore, the best choice is C - Fine Motor and General Mechanix.

Question 16

Dark Roast Products, Inc., makes espresso machines and sells one to the Eat at Joe's Café. Flo, the café's employee working at the coffee bar, is injured when the machine malfunctions. If the injury occurred as a result of a misrepresentation about the product, Dark Roast is most likely liable for
A) negligence.
B) fraud.
C) privity.
D) puffery.

Accepted Answer

If the injury occurred as a result of a misrepresentation about the product, it is most likely a case of fraud. In such a scenario, Dark Roast made a false representation about their product and caused harm to Flo, which makes them liable for fraud. Negligence would be applicable if Dark Roast failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring the safety of their product. Privity refers to the relationship between the parties that are involved in a transaction and does not apply here. Puffery refers to exaggerated marketing claims that are not considered false or misleading and is not applicable in this scenario.

Question 17

Garden Tool Company makes chain saws. Hadrian is injured while using a Garden saw and sues the company for product liability based on neg-ligence. To win, Hadrian must show that
A) Garden did not use due care with respect to the trimmer.
B) ​Garden used puffery in its advertising.
C) Hadrian was not experienced in the use of trimmers.
D) Hadrian was in privity with Garden.

Accepted Answer

Hadrian must show that Garden did not use due care with respect to the trimmer, meaning that Garden failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, or warning of the product. Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care, which is a breach of the duty of care owed to the consumer. The other choices are not relevant to the issue of product liability based on negligence.

Question 18

River Rock Company makes spas and hot tubs. Sterling files a product liability suit against River Rock, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold the defendant liable, the court may take note that a manufacturer or seller 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 or seller has no duty to warn about risks that are obvious.

Question 19

Lipstik, Inc. makes cosmetics. Lipstik intentionally mislabels its packaged products to conceal a defect. Trusting and relying on the mislabeling, Mikayla buys a Lipstik product and suffers an injury. Lipstik is most likely liable for
A) product misuse.
B) fraud.
C) privity.
D) ​puffery.

Accepted Answer

Lipstik intentionally mislabeled its products to conceal a defect, which amounts to fraud. Mikayla, who trusted and relied on the mislabeling, suffered an injury as a result. Lipstik is therefore liable for its fraudulent conduct.

Question 20

Wideload, Inc., makes, sells, and leases trucks, trailers, and other moving and hauling equipment for consumer use. Verna files a product liability suit against Wideload, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider
A) the assumptions of Wideload.
B) the identity of Wideload's owner.
C) the intentions of Wideload.
D) the expectations of the ordinary consumer.

Accepted Answer

In a product liability case, the court will consider the expectations of the ordinary consumer. This means that the court will determine if the product was designed in a way that met the reasonable expectations of consumers who would use it. Therefore, choice D is the correct answer. The assumptions, identity of the owner, and intentions of the manufacturer are not relevant to determining liability in a product liability case.

Quiz 5: Product Liability

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

Good Cookin' Products Company makes heat convection ovens. Heidi discovers that her Good Cookin' oven is defective and sues the maker for product liabil-ity based on strict liability. To win, Heidi must show that she

AgriGro, Inc., sells hybrid seed to farms and other agricultural enterprises. Brandon buys and plants AgriGro seed on his Country Farm, but no crop grows because the seed is defective. Brandon sues AgriGro for product liability based on negligence. To win, Brandon must show that

Street Bikes, Inc., makes and sells a bicycle to Theo. Street Bikes fails to exercise "due care" to make the bicycle safe, however, and Theo is injured as a result. Street Bikes is most likely liable for

ClearCall Corporation makes phones, which are sold to consumers by DefDeals stores. Erna files a product liabil-ity suit against ClearCall, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold ClearCall liable, the court may consider

Global Insulation Company makes and sells fire-retardant building materials.To determine whether the risk of harm from the products as designed outweigh their utility to the users and the public, most courts would engage in

Meds Company, Oral Med Corporation, and Pharma, Inc., are drug makers. In a suit against all of these parties in which market-share li-ability is imposed, most likely to be liable are

BioChem Corporation, ChemCo Company, and DexLabs Inc. make and distribute toxic chemicals. In a product-liability suit against all of these parties, the court is most likely to impose market-share li-ability if it cannot be proved which of the parties

Fleet Feet Corporation makes athletic shoes. Gloria, a marathoner, files a product liabil-ity suit against Fleet Feet, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold Fleet Feet liable, the court may consider an alternative design's

SmartTalk, Inc., makes and markets cell phones and related accessories. When problems develop with SmartTalk products or sales, the company may be liable in product liability for any of the following except

Fine Motor Company buys auto parts from General Mechanix, Inc., and puts them in its vehicles without changing their composition. If the parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects are

Garden Tool Company makes chain saws. Hadrian is injured while using a Garden saw and sues the company for product liability based on neg-ligence. To win, Hadrian must show that

River Rock Company makes spas and hot tubs. Sterling files a product liability suit against River Rock, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold the defendant liable, the court may take note that a manufacturer or seller has no duty to warn about risks that are

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

Wideload, Inc., makes, sells, and leases trucks, trailers, and other moving and hauling equipment for consumer use. Verna files a product liability suit against Wideload, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider