Legal Frameworks T/F Chapter 7
A product liability action based on negligence requires privity of contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant-manufacturer.
F
An action in strict product liability requires that a product be reasonably dangerous to a user or consumer.
F
As a defense to product liability, comparative negligence completely absolves a defendant of liability.
F
Assumption of risk is no defense to a product liability action.
F
Generally, the strict liability of manufacturers and other sellers does not extend to injured bystanders.
F
Marketing puffery has traditionally been recognized in product liability law as a product defect.
F
No court engages in a risk-utility analysis to determine whether the risk of harm from a product is outweighed by its utility.
F
One characteristic of an abnormally dangerous activity is that it involves a low risk of serious harm.
F
People who keep domestic animals are strictly liable for any harm inflicted by the animals.
F
The doctrine of strict liability can be applied to sellers of goods, but not distributors.
F
The extreme risk of an activity is a defense against imposing strict liability.
F
To support the imposition of strict product liability, a product must be substantially changed from the time it is sold to the time an injury occurs.
F
Under a theory of market-share liability, a manufacturer sells "shares" of its potential strict liability and thereby spreads the risk and the cost.
F
Under the doctrine of strict liability, if there is no fault, there is no liability.
F
Under the doctrine of strict liability, liability is imposed only if a person fails to use reasonable care.
F
A design defect in a product will support the imposition of liability on a strict product liability basis.
T
A manufacturer's duty of care extends to the inspection and testing of products bought to incorporate in the final product.
T
A manufacturing defect is a departure from a product unit's design specifications that results in products that are physically flawed.
T
A product contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised.
T
A product liability claim may be based on the tort theory of fraud.
T
A public policy underlying the imposition of strict product liability is that consumers should be protected against unsafe products.
T
A statute of limitations may restrict the time within which an action in product liability may be brought.
T
A statute of repose places outer time limits on product liability actions.
T
An inadequate warning will support the imposition of liability on a strict product liability basis.
T
Government regulations can preempt claims for product liability.
T
One defense to product liability is to show that there is no basis for the plaintiff's claim.
T
One of the things a manufacturer must do in order to avoid product liability is to exercise due care in using the appropriate production process.
T
Recovery in a product liability case may be limited when it can be shown that the plaintiff misused the product.
T
Some courts consider the negligent actions of both the plaintiff and the defendant when apportioning liability in a product liability action.
T
Some states limit the application of strict product liability to situations involving personal injuries.
T
Suppliers are generally required to expect reasonably foreseeable misuses of their products.
T
The dangers associated with using sharp knives are so commonly known that manufacturers need not warn users of those dangers.
T
To be liable for product liability, a seller must normally be engaged in the business of distributing the product that causes harm by its use.
T
To succeed in a product liability suit, an injured plaintiff must show that a product's defect was the proximate cause of the injury.
T
When a user is injured as a result of a seller's misrepresentation, the basis of product liability may be the tort of fraud.
T
