Question 1

Navigation, Inc., makes aviation guidance systems. Ollie is in?jured in a crash caused by a defective Navigation product. A statute re?stricts the time within which Ollie may file a product liability suit against Navigation regardless of when he was injured. This is a statute of

Accepted Answer

A statute of repose limits the time within which a lawsuit can be filed, regardless of when the injury occurred, focusing on the time elapsed since the product was first sold or manufactured.

Question 2

Horizon Corporation makes cell phones. Inez files a product liabil?ity suit against Horizon, alleging a design defect. Under the Restate?ment (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, in deciding whether to hold Horizon liable, the court may consider

Accepted Answer

The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability allows the court to consider both the effect of an alternative design on the products' costs and life as well as the range of consumer choice among products in deciding whether to hold the manufacturer liable for a design defect. Therefore, the best choice is D.

Question 3

A Coastal Railroad train's brakes malfunction and it rolls towards main?te?nance workers on the tracks. Everyone gets out of the way except Dick, who wants to show off. The train hits Dick, who sues Eagle, Inc., the brakes' manufacturer. Eagle can raise the defense of

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk is a defense that can be raised by Eagle, Inc. in this case. Dick's decision to remain on the tracks despite knowing the risks involved can be considered as an assumption of risk, and hence, Eagle may not be liable for the injury caused to him. The other defenses, such as component-part manufacturer, consumer participation, and product misuse, may not apply in this case.

Question 4

Fact Pattern 23-A1 
Bret, a representative of Concrete Products, Inc. assures Dependable Construction Company that Concrete's cement will not crack within a certain range of temperatures. DCC uses the product. When cracks develop within the stated temperature range, DCC files a suit against Concrete.
-Refer to Fact Pattern 23-A1. Suppose that the court rules against Concrete. The manufacturer might have avoided that result by

Accepted Answer

By not allowing Bret to make an express warranty, Concrete Products could have avoided potential liability. An express warranty is a guarantee or assurance made by a seller that certain representations about a product, such as its quality or performance, are true. If the product does not meet the warranty, the buyer may be entitled to a remedy such as a refund or replacement. If Bret had not made any express warranty about the cement's performance in specific temperature ranges, DCC would not have had a legal claim against Concrete.

Question 5

Alpha Company, Beta Corporation, and Gamma, Inc., are drug makers. Kappa Company and Omega, Inc., are drug dis?tribu?tors. In a suit against all of these parties in which market-share li?ability is imposed, most likely to be liable are

Accepted Answer

In a market-share liability case, the liability is imposed on all defendants based on their market share of the relevant market. In the given scenario, both the drug makers and distributors are involved in the distribution chain of the drugs, and therefore, they are equally responsible for any harm caused to the consumers. Hence, the most likely liable parties are the distributors and the manufacturers.

Question 6

Ceramic Tile Company designs and makes floor tiles. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Ceramic could be liable for vio?lating its duty of care with respect to

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit based on negligence, a manufacturer such as Ceramic Tile Company could be liable for both the design and making of the tiles if they failed to exercise reasonable care in either aspect. If the design of the tiles is faulty and causes harm to consumers, Ceramic Tile Company could be held responsible. Likewise, if there was a mistake during the manufacturing process that caused the tiles to be defective and caused harm, Ceramic Tile Company could also be held responsible for the harm caused. Therefore, both the design and making of the tiles can be potential sources of duty of care violations.

Question 7

Musical, Inc., sells fifty MP3 players to Noise Stores, Inc. To avoid liability for most implied warranties, Musical should state in writing that the players are sold

Accepted Answer

By stating that the players are sold "as is," Musical is making it clear that they are not making any warranties and that the buyer is assuming all risks associated with the purchase. This will help to limit their liability for implied warranties.

Question 8

Country Style, Inc., makes landscaping tools. Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, Country could be liable for a warning defect if there is a foreseeable risk of harm posed by a product and

Accepted Answer

According to the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, a warning defect may exist if a product poses a foreseeable risk of harm and the omission of a warning renders the product not reasonably safe. Therefore, Choice A is the correct answer. Choice B refers to a design defect, Choice C refers to a manufacturing defect, and Choice D is not a valid option as one of the choices must be correct.

Question 9

Oven Products Company makes microwave ovens. Pico discovers that his Oven Products oven is defective and sues the maker for product liabil?ity based on strict liability. To win, Pico must show that

Accepted Answer

To win a product liability case based on strict liability, the plaintiff (Pico in this case) must prove that they suffered an injury caused by the defect. It is not necessary for them to prove that the defendant (Oven Products) sold the oven to them or that they knew and appreciated the risk caused by the defect. Additionally, the "defect" could be any sort of issue or malfunction that renders the product unreasonably dangerous, and does not need to be a commonly known danger.

Question 10

Digital Systems, Inc. (DSI), makes storage media and other periph?eral computer products. A DSI product may be unreasonably danger?ous due to

Accepted Answer

A product may be considered unreasonably dangerous if it has a defect in its design or an inadequate warning. Both of these factors contribute to the potential harm that the product could cause to consumers. Therefore, if a DSI product is unreasonably dangerous, it could be due to either or both of these factors.

Question 11

Safe-Rite Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for elec?tronic devices. Tina files a product liability suit against Safe-Rite, alleg?ing a warning defect. Under the Restate?ment (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, in deciding whether to hold Safe-Rite liable, the court may consider

Accepted Answer

According to the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, in a warning defect claim, the court may consider both the characteristics of expected users and the content of any warning to decide whether to hold the manufacturer liable for product defects.

Question 12

GR8 Skates Company makes and sells a pair of skates to Hugh. GR8 fails to exercise "due care" to make the skates safe, and Hugh is injured as a result. GR8 is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

GR8 Skates Company failed to exercise "due care" to make the skates safe, which is a breach of their duty of care owed to their customers. As a result, Hugh was injured, which constitutes negligence. Therefore, GR8 Skates Company is most likely liable for their negligent actions. Option A and D may not apply as they do not relieve GR8 Skates Company from their responsibility towards ensuring customer safety. Option B is insufficient information to assess liability.

Question 13

Universal Assembly Company makes espresso machines and sells one to Vim through a misrepresentation on the label on which Vim relies and that results in an injury to Vim. Universal is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

Universal Assembly Company is liable for fraud because they made a misrepresentation on the label, on which Vim relied, resulting in an injury.

Question 14

Fun Toyz Corporation makes skateboards, which it sells to con?sumers, including Holly and Ira. Due to a defect, Holly is injured while using her new board. Ira's board has the same defect, but he is not injured. In a product liability suit based on strict product liabil?ity, Fun Toyz may be liable to

Accepted Answer

In a strict product liability suit, the manufacturer is held strictly liable for any injuries or damages caused by a defect in their product, regardless of whether they were negligent or not. Since Holly was injured due to a defect in her skateboard, Fun Toyz can be held liable to her under strict product liability. However, Ira did not suffer any injuries, so he would not have a claim against Fun Toyz.

Question 15

Gert, an obese individual, files a suit against Hot n' Tasty, Inc., alleging that its food is unhealthy because, as is well known, it contains high lev?els of salt and sugar. Gert's suit is most likely to

Accepted Answer

Gert's suit is likely to fail because the danger of salt and sugar in fast food is open and obvious to a reasonable consumer. It is well known that fast food is often high in salt, sugar, and fat, and consumers are responsible for making informed choices about what they eat. As such, Hot n' Tasty is not likely to be held liable for Gert's obesity.

Question 16

Ed, an obese individual, files a suit against Fast Food Corporation (FFC), alleging that FFC's food is unhealthy because, as is well known, it contains high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat. Ed is most likely to

Accepted Answer

The answer of Ed, an obese individual, files a suit...

Question 17

Yard Tool Company makes and leases a backhoe to Zack. Due to a defect attributable to Yard Tool's negligence, Zack is injured in an accident in which his neighbor Aron is also hurt. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Yard Tool may be liable to

Accepted Answer

Yard Tool may be liable for the injuries to both Zack and Aron since the defect in the backhoe was attributable to the company's negligence. As a manufacturer, Yard Tool has a duty to ensure that its products are safe for its users and can be held liable for any injuries caused by a defective product.

Question 18

Farm Equip, Inc., makes farm?ing machinery. Gail discovers that her Farm Equip tractor is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on negligence. To win, Gail must show that

Accepted Answer

To win a product liability based on negligence, Gail must show that she suffered an injury caused by the defect. The other options are not necessary to prove negligence.

Question 19

Cold Stuf, Inc., makes snowboards, which it sells to Deep Freeze Sports Store (DFS). DFS sells Cold Stuf boards to consumers, in?cluding Ed. Ed is in?jured while using the board. In a product liabil?ity suit based on strict li?ability, Ed may recover from

Accepted Answer

Under strict liability, both the manufacturer (Cold Stuf) and the seller (DFS) can be held liable for any damages caused by their product. As DFS sold the boards to consumers, including Ed, they are also responsible for ensuring the safety of the product. Therefore, Ed may recover from either Cold Stuf or DFS.

Question 20

Stable Tool Company makes hedge trimmers. Troy is injured while using a Stable trimmer and sues the company for product liability based on neg?ligence. To win, Troy must show that

Accepted Answer

To win a product liability case based on negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant (in this case, Stable Tool Company) did not use reasonable care with respect to the manufacture or design of the product. This means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care, that this duty was breached, and that the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The other choices (B, C, and D) are not relevant to a negligence claim.

Quiz 23: Warranties and Product Liability