Question 1

The brakes on a train owned by Rolling Stock Railway,Inc.,malfunction.The train rolls towards maintenance workers on the tracks.Everyone gets out of the way except Sid,who wants to show off.The train hits Sid,who sues Train Components,Inc.,the brakes' manufacturer.Train Components can raise the defense of
A)a component-part manufacturer.
B)assumption of risk.
C)privity.
D)product misuse.

Accepted Answer

Sid knowingly exposed himself to the risk by choosing not to get out of the way, which is a classic example of assumption of risk.

Question 2

Luke is playing a video game on a defective disk that melts in his game player,starting a fire that injures his hands.Luke files a suit against Mystic Maze,Inc.,the game's maker under the doctrine off strict liability.A significant application of this doctrine is in the area of
A)cyber torts.
B)intentional torts.
C)product liability.
D)unintentional torts.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability is a concept in product liability law that holds manufacturers liable for harm caused by defective products, regardless of whether or not the manufacturer was negligent. This doctrine is specifically applied to cases of product liability, making option C the correct choice.

Question 3

ClearCall Corporation makes phones,which are sold to consumers by DefDeals stores.Erna files a product liability 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

When deciding whether ClearCall is liable for Erna's product liability suit, the court may consider an available alternative design. This means that if there was another design that would have made the product safer and the defendant failed to implement it, they may be held liable for the defect. The other choices, such as Erna's intended use, DefDeals' accounting, and ClearCall's quality control efforts may not be relevant to whether the design of the phone was defective.

Question 4

SurgeStop Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for electronic devices.Rollo files a product liability suit against SurgeStop,alleging a warning defect.In deciding whether to hold SurgeStop liable,the court may consider
A)consumers' general lack of desire to read the product's warnings.
B)the plaintiff's specific lack of desire to read the product warnings.
C)the obvious risks of other products.
D)the obvious risks of this product.

Accepted Answer

The court will consider the obvious risks associated with this particular product in determining whether or not there was a warning defect. Factors such as the likelihood and severity of harm that could result from the use of the product without adequate warnings will be taken into account. The court will not consider consumers' or the plaintiff's lack of desire to read warnings or risks associated with other products.

Question 5

Sea & Surf Corporation makes sailboards,which are bought and distributed by Tropical Marketing Company to UV Sports Stores,Inc.,which sells them to consumers.Wen is injured while using a Sea & Surf board that he bought from UV Sports.In a product liability suit based on strict liability,Wen may recover from
A)Sea & Surf only.
B)Sea & Surf,Tropical Marketing,or UV Sports.
C)UV Sports only.
D)none of the choices.

Accepted Answer

In a product liability suit based on strict liability, the injured party can recover from any party involved in the chain of distribution if the product is found to be defective. Since the sailboard was made by Sea & Surf, distributed by Tropical Marketing and sold by UV Sports, all three can be held liable for the injury. Therefore, Wen can recover from Sea & Surf, Tropical Marketing, or UV Sports.

Question 6

Alice is injured when she is struck by debris floating on her property,which was flooded by a breach of Big R Ranch's reservoir.The rule that a person who engages in certain activities may be liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any harm that results was established by
A)private parties engaged in negotiation.
B)the U.S.Congress. 
C) a British court.
D)a U.S.court.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities was established by a British court in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher in 1868.

Question 7

Fleet Feet Corporation makes athletic shoes.Gloria,a marathoner,files a product liability 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

In a product liability suit alleging a design defect, the court may consider the advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design in deciding whether to hold the manufacturer liable. This is because the alternative design may present a safer or more reasonable alternative that the manufacturer should have used instead. Factors such as popularity among industrial designers and consumers, weight and heft, and aesthetics may not necessarily be relevant in determining liability for a design defect.

Question 8

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 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 imposed when it cannot be determined which specific manufacturer supplied the harmful product, but the manufacturers are held liable based on their market share.

Question 9

Garage Magic,Inc.,contracts for the sale of a certain number of garage door openers to Home & Yard Hardware stores.Ian buys one of openers.The applicable statute of limitations prescribes a period of four years.To bring a product liability claim against Garage Magic,Ian must file a suit within four years of
A)Ian's discovery of an injury caused by the opener.
B)Garage Magic's sale of the opener to Home & Yard.
C)Garage Magic's design of the opener.
D)Home & Yard's sale of the opener to Ian.

Accepted Answer

The statute of limitations for a product liability claim starts running from the time the plaintiff discovers the injury or should have discovered the injury through reasonable diligence, not from the sale or design of the product or the sale of the product to the plaintiff by a third party. Therefore, Ian must file a suit within four years of discovering his injury caused by the opener.

Question 10

Stan,an air-conditioning and heating technician,files a suit against Temp-Set Corporation,alleging that its thermostats are unreasonably dangerous due to the possibility of electrical shock.Temp-Set's best defense is most likely
A)assumption of risk.
B)knowledgeable user.
C)commonly known danger.
D)none of the choices.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Stan,an air-conditioning and heating technician,files a suit...

Question 11

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes and sells soft drinks.Talia buys and drinks a Soda Bubbles beverage,which proves defective and injures her.One justification for holding Soda Bubbles strictly liable for the harm caused to Talia by its defective product is that
A)Soda Bubbles is making a profit from its activities.
B)Talia is a person,not a business.
C)making and selling products are abnormally dangerous activities.
D)Soda Bubbles and Talia are in privity.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability can be justified because Soda Bubbles is making a profit from its activities, and thus, it should bear the cost of injuries resulting from defects in its products.

Question 12

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 with the intent to deceive consumers, which constitutes fraud. Mikayla suffered an injury as a result of relying on the mislabeling, making Lipstik liable for the harm caused. Product misuse, privity, and puffery do not apply in this scenario.

Question 13

Forest & Field Company makes and leases a backhoe to Gallagher.Due to a defect attributable to Forest & Field's negligence,Gallagher is injured in an accident in which his neighbor Helga is also hurt.In a product liability suit based on negligence,Forest & Field may be liable to
A)Gallagher only.
B)no one.
C)Gallagher and Helga.
D)Helga only.

Accepted Answer

Forest & Field Company may be liable to both Gallagher and Helga since they were injured as a result of the defective backhoe caused by the company's negligence. Forest & Field's liability extends not only to the lessee (Gallagher) but also to third parties (Helga) who were injured due to the defect.

Question 14

Good Cookin' Products Company makes heat convection ovens.Heidi discovers that her Good Cookin' oven is defective and sues the maker for product liability 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 strict liability case, Heidi must show that she suffered an injury caused by the defect in the product.

Question 15

Fine Motor Company buys gas pedals and other parts from General Mechanix,Inc.,and puts them in its vehicles without changing their composition.If the pedals or other 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

Since Fine Motor puts the pedals and parts without changing their composition, they do not alter the products' defects in any way. As General Mechanix is the manufacturer of the defective parts, they are responsible for any damage caused by these defects, and as Fine Motor puts them in their vehicles, they are also liable for any harm caused. Therefore, both Fine Motor and General Mechanix are responsible for any damage caused by the defects in the parts.

Question 16

Island Breeze Company designs and makes desk,window,and ceiling fans.In a product liability suit based on negligence,Island Breeze could be liable for violating its duty of care with respect to all of the following except
A)the design of the fans.
B)the production process used to make the fans.
C)the warnings on the labels of the fans.
D)a consumer's unforeseeable misuse of a fan.

Accepted Answer

Island Breeze Company cannot be held liable for a consumer's unforeseeable misuse of a fan. The company does have a duty to design safe products, use reasonable care in the production process, and provide adequate warnings on its products. However, it cannot control how a consumer uses its products outside of its intended purpose, and thus cannot be held liable for unforeseeable misuse.

Question 17

Roadbuilders,Inc.,uses dynamite in its operations.Sky-Hi Fireworx,Inc.,stores explosives in its warehouses.Most likely liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any injury caused by an abnormally dangerous activity will be
A)none of the choices.
B)Roadbuilders and Sky-Hi.
C)Roadbuilders only.
D)Sky-Hi only.

Accepted Answer

Both Roadbuilders and Sky-Hi engage in activities that involve the use or storage of explosives, which are considered abnormally dangerous activities. Therefore, they are most likely liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any injury caused by their activities. The other choices are incorrect as they either exclude one of the companies or do not include either of them.

Question 18

MedBeat Inc.,makes medical devices,including heart pacemakers.Nina,a heart patient,files a product liability 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 makes the pacemaker not reasonably safe, which is a key factor in determining product liability. The other options, including the existence of a reasonable alternative design, MedBeat's due care in making the pacemaker, and Nina's insurance coverage, are not relevant in deciding whether to hold MedBeat liable for a warning defect.

Question 19

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

Accepted Answer

To prove product liability based on negligence, Hadrian must show that Garden Tool did not exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, testing, or warning about its product. Privity (D) is not relevant as it refers to contractual relationships, and Hadrian's experience (C) and Garden Tool's advertising statements (B) are not relevant to proving negligence.

Question 20

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)market-share liability.
B)none of the choices.
C)negligence.
D)product misuse.

Accepted Answer

Street Bikes is likely liable for negligence because they didn't exercise reasonable care in making the bicycle safe, which resulted in Theo's injury. Market-share liability would only apply if the injury was caused by a defective product but it was impossible to identify which manufacturer was responsible. Product misuse would require Theo to use the product in an unintended way, which is not mentioned in the scenario.

Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

Luke is playing a video game on a defective disk that melts in his game player,starting a fire that injures his hands.Luke files a suit against Mystic Maze,Inc.,the game's maker under the doctrine off strict liability.A significant application of this doctrine is in the area of

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

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

Alice is injured when she is struck by debris floating on her property,which was flooded by a breach of Big R Ranch's reservoir.The rule that a person who engages in certain activities may be liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any harm that results was established by

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

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 liability if it cannot be proved which of the parties

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

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes and sells soft drinks.Talia buys and drinks a Soda Bubbles beverage,which proves defective and injures her.One justification for holding Soda Bubbles strictly liable for the harm caused to Talia by its defective product is that

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

Forest & Field Company makes and leases a backhoe to Gallagher.Due to a defect attributable to Forest & Field's negligence,Gallagher is injured in an accident in which his neighbor Helga is also hurt.In a product liability suit based on negligence,Forest & Field may be liable to

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

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

Island Breeze Company designs and makes desk,window,and ceiling fans.In a product liability suit based on negligence,Island Breeze could be liable for violating its duty of care with respect to all of the following except

Roadbuilders,Inc.,uses dynamite in its operations.Sky-Hi Fireworx,Inc.,stores explosives in its warehouses.Most likely liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any injury caused by an abnormally dangerous activity will be

Garden Tool Company makes chain saws.Hadrian is injured while using a Garden Tool saw and sues the company for product liability based on negligence.To win,Hadrian 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