BA chapter 5 review

tort of fraud

When a user or consumer is injured as a result of a manufacturer's or seller's fraudulent *misrepresentation*, the basis of *liability* may be....what?

d (fraud)

When a user or consumer is injured as a result of a manufacturer's or seller's misrepresentation, the basis of the liability may be the tort of: a. negligence. b. strict liability. c. malpractice. d. fraud.

privity of contract (Privity of contract is *not required* in a strict liability situation)

...refers to the relationship that exists between the promisor and the promisee of a contract.

negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, strict liability

*Product liability* claims may be based on the tort theories of _________________, __________________ _______________________, and ____________ ________________.

c (a less dangerous alternate was commercially feasible but was not produced)

A court might consider a product to be unreasonably dangerous if: a. the product was adequately labeled with warnings for the ordinary consumer. b. the product was less dangerous than was expected by the ordinary consumer. c. a less dangerous alternative was commercially feasible but was not produced. d. the product was frequently misused by consumers, despite adequate warnings about the dangers of misusing the product.

d. a manufacturing defect

A glass bottle is made thinner than its design specifications required. The bottle explodes in a consumer's face. This is an example of: a. a conformity defect. b. an inadequate warning. c. a design defect. d. a manufacturing defect.

free (this means that a person who is injured by a defective product can bring a negligence suit even though he or she was *not the one* who actually purchased the product)

A manufacturer is liable for its failure to exercise due care to *any person* who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product. Free Answer (type free)

d (privity of contract)

A product liability action based on negligence does not require: a. breach of the duty of care. b. injury to the plaintiff. c. none of these choices. d. privity of contract.

b (APPI misrepresented a material fact on which Bob relied)

Air Power Products, Inc. (APPI), manufactures construction equipment. Bob is injured while using an APPI nail driver and sues the company for product liability based on misrepresentation. To win, Bob must show that: a. APPI did not use due care with respect to the nail driver. b. APPI misrepresented a material fact on which Bob relied. c. none of these choices. d. he was in privity of contract with APPI.

a (Antonio does not have to prove that he was the purchaser of the lawn mower, but does have to prove that the manufacturer breached its duty of care.)

Antonio is injured while mowing his lawn using a lawn mower he borrowed from his neighbor Carl. If Antonio sues the manufacturer of the lawn mower for product liability based on negligence: a. Antonio does not have to prove that he was the purchaser of the lawn mower, but does have to prove that the manufacturer breached its duty of care. b. Antonio does not have to prove that he was the purchaser of the lawn mower, and also does not have to prove that the manufacturer breached its duty of care. c. Antonio must prove that he was the purchaser of the lawn mower, and also has to prove that the manufacturer breached its duty of care. d. Antonio will lose because he was not the purchaser of the lawn mower.

a (not strictly liable, because Gates did not show that the soup was defective at the time it left the manufacturer.) (The mere presence of a defect alone is not sufficient to hold a manufacturer liable. *One of the requirements for strict product liability is that a product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it.* Gates did not prove that the soup was defective when it left Campbell's hands, so Campbell's was not liable.)

Campbell Soup Co. manufactured, sold, and shipped packages of chicken-flavored Campbell's Ramen Noodle Soup to a distributor. The distributor sold and shipped the packages to Associated Grocers. Associated Grocers shipped the soup to Warehouse Foods, a retail grocer. Six weeks after Campbell first shipped the soup, Warehouse Foods sold a package of the soup to Kathy Jo Gates. Gates prepared the soup, and halfway through eating it, she discovered beetle larvae in the noodles. She suffered no ill effects from eating the soup. Nevertheless, she filed a lawsuit in an Arkansas state court against Campbell on a theory of strict product liability. The court most likely held that Campbell's was: a. not strictly liable, because Gates did not show that the soup was defective at the time it left the manufacturer. b. strictly liable, because it did not warn consumers that the soup could contain inedible substances. c. strictly liable, because of the presence of bugs in its product. d. not strictly liable, because Gates assumed the risk when she purchased the soup.

b (only the effect of an alternative design)

Cellular Products Corporation (CPC) makes cell phones. Dina files a product liability suit against CPC, alleging a design defect. Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, in deciding whether to hold CPC liable, the court may consider: a. the effect of an alternative design and the range of products. b. only the effect of an alternative design. c. neither the effect of an alternative design on the product's costs and life nor the range of consumer choice among products. d. only the range of products.

d (neither in what manner nor why the player became defective)

Cool Electronics makes DVD players. Edie is injured while using a Cool player, which also damages her house. She sues Cool for product liability based on strict liability. In most states, to recover damages, she must show: a. why but not in what manner the player became defective. b. in what manner but not why the player became defective. c. in what manner and why the player became defective. d. neither in what manner nor why the player became defective

c (liable, because it had failed to place adequate warnings on the airplane parts.)

George Nesselrode lost his life in an airplane crash. The plane had been manufactured by Beech Aircraft Corp. and was owned by Executive Beechcraft, Inc. Shortly before the crash occurred, Executive Beechcraft had conducted a routine inspection of the plane and found that some of the parts needed to be replaced. The new parts were supplied by Beech Aircraft but installed by Executive Beechcraft. These particular parts could be installed backward, and if they were, the plane would crash. The parts did not carry any written warning about the danger of improper installation. The crash that took Nesselrode's life resulted from just such an incorrect installation of the airplane parts. Nesselrode's estate filed a lawsuit against Beech Aircraft for damages on a theory of strict product liability. The court most likely held that Beech was: a. not liable, because it had exercised due care by providing proper replacement parts. b. liable, because airplanes are inherently dangerous. c. liable, because it had failed to place adequate warnings on the airplane parts. d. not liable, because Nesselrode had assumed the risk.

c (plaintiff need not prove which particular distributor of a widely distributed product caused his or her injury.)

In a situation in which market-share liability is imposed, the: a. defense of assumption of risk allows the defendants to avoid liability. b. plaintiff must prove which distributor supplied the product that caused his or her injury. c. plaintiff need not prove which particular distributor of a widely distributed product caused his or her injury. d. plaintiff must prove which distributor supplied the product that caused his or her injury only if the product was distributed internationally.

c (consumers should be protected from unsafe products)

One of the public-policy assumptions underlying the imposition of strict product liability is that: a. manufacturers would be put out of business if they were forced to bear the risk of injuries caused by their products. b. full employment of defense lawyers is in the public's best interest. c. consumers should be protected from unsafe products. d. plaintiffs' attorneys have sufficient bases for bringing claims against manufacturers.

False

One requirement for a product liability suit based on strict liability is a failure to exercise reasonable care. True or False

True

One requirement for a product liability suit based on strict liability is an injury or damage. True or False

b (the distributors and the manufacturers)

Pharma Company, Oral Meds Corporation, and Narco, Inc., are drug makers. Medico Company and Lab Source, Inc., are drug distributors. In a suit against all of these parties in which market-share liability is imposed, most likely to be liable are: a. the manufacturers only. b. the distributors and the manufacturers. c. neither the distributors nor the manufacturers. d. the distributors only.

c (Strict liability, negligence, and misrepresentation)

Product liability claims may be based on which of the following tort theories? a. Misrepresentation and negligence only b. Strict liability, negligence, and misrepresentation c. Strict liability and negligence only d. Strict liability only

a (the characteristics of expected users and the content of any warning.)

Safe-Rite Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for electronic devices. Tina files a product liability suit against Safe-Rite alleging a warning defect. Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, in deciding whether to hold Safe-Rite liable, the court may consider: a. the characteristics of expected users and the content of any warning. b. only the characteristics of expected users. c. neither the characteristics of expected d. users nor the content of any warning. only the content of any warning.

True

Strict liability is liability without fault. True or False

unsafe, escape, bear

The law imposes *strict product liability* as a matter of *public policy*. This public policy rests on a threefold assumption: 1. Consumers should be protected against _________ products. 2. Manufacturers and distributors should not _____________ liability for faulty products simply because they are not in privity of contract with the ultimate user of those products. 3. Manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of products are generally in a better position than consumers to __________ the costs associated with injuries caused by their products—costs that they can ultimately pass on to all consumers in the form of higher prices.

designing, selecting, appropriate, testing, adequate, inspecting

The manufacturer must exercise due care in all of the following areas: - ________________ the product. - ________________ the materials. -Using the ________________ production process. -Assembling and ____________ the product. -Placing _____________ warnings on the label to inform the user of dangers of which an ordinary person might not be aware. -___________________ and testing any purchased components used in the final product.

product liability

Those who make, sell, or lease goods can be held liable for physical harm or property damage caused by those goods to a consumer, user, or bystander.

True

To succeed in a product liability suit based on strict liability, a plaintiff does not need to prove why or in what manner a product became defective. True or False

True

To succeed in a product liability suit based on strict liability, a plaintiff must prove that a product was defective. True or False

d (that the product was defective when it was sold or leased)

To succeed in a strict product liability case, the plaintiff must show: a. that the manufacturer did not exercise reasonable care in making the product. b. in what manner the product became defective. c. the reason why the product is defective. d. that the product was defective when it was sold or leased.

a (The goods must have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury occurred.)

Which of the following is not a requirement for strict product liability? a. The goods must have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury occurred. b. The product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective condition. c. The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it. d. The defective condition must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage.

negligence

this is the failure to *exercise the degree of care* that a reasonable, prudent person would have exercised under the circumstances.