WALBCH7TF
A company cannot be a defendant in a tort suit since a firm is not a natural person.
False
A manufacturer is liable for injuries suffered by product users regardless of the sophistication of the buyer
False
A producer is relieved of strict liability in tort if it can show that it used all possible care to construct the product in question.
False
About 80 percent of the total costs involved in tort litigation goes to awards to plaintiffs (injured parties).
False
Foreign firms that sell products in the U.S. do not have to bear the costs of compliance with strict liability standards.
False
If Company A runs an aggressive advertising campaign that tells customers why they should quit doing business with Company B and do business with A instead, B will be able to sue A for interference with a prospective advantage.
False
If a producer did not foresee a possible danger with a product that does, in fact, cause injury, the producer cannot be held negligent in tort.
False
If a product is safe for ordinary use, and a producer provides instructions on use for consumers, then strictly liable in tort is eliminated.
False
If you make an offer to sell a product to a person who is already buying the product from another party, you have interfered with contractual relations and will be liable in tort.
False
In Baxter v. Ford Motor (where Baxter lost an eye from a broken windshield) Baxter was compensated by Ford under the rule of strict liability in tort for injuries he suffered due to Ford's defective product.
False
In Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye from a broken windshield, Ford's ads about the quality of the windshield were held to create an implied warranty of safety because Ford misrepresented the quality and safety of the product.
False
When the tort of interference with contractual relations occurs, the party responsible for the tort is the party who breached an existing contract.
False
While interfering with an existing contractual relationship can be a tort, if a contract has not yet been formed, there can be no tort.
False
Caveat emptor means let the buyer beware.
True
Common defenses in strict liability cases are product misuse or assumption of risk.
True
Courts developed strict liability in tort when strict liability under contract law proved too restrictive.
True
Design defect cases usually do not concern one product that slips through the production process with a defect.
True
Even if a product is safe for ordinary use, a producer may be held strictly liable in tort for not telling consumers of possible dangers associated with improperly using the product.
True
Fraud may be the same as deceit in tort law.
True
Frustration over the difficulties of proving negligence led to the move in tort law from a negligence standard to a strict liability standard.
True
If a producer learns after it sells a product that it has a problem that might cause consumers injuries, the producer must warn consumers of the danger or face liability.
True
If consumption of large quantities of alcoholic beverages over time causes serious health problems a consumer may not recover in tort against the beverage makers because of she assumed the risk.
True
In Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye from a broken windshield, Ford's ads about the quality of the windshield were held to create an express warranty of safety because Ford misrepresented the quality and safety of the product.
True
In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products the court imposed strict liability on a producer due to failure to prevent a defect in its product that caused injury to a consumer.
True
In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. the court held Buick liable because it is responsible for the quality of wheels and other parts used on its vehicles.
True
In a case alleging interference with a contractual relation, the defendant must have known the plaintiff had a contract with a third party.
True
In a suit for fraud, the plaintiff must establish a good reason to rely on the bad information provided by the defendant.
True
In a suit for intentional misrepresentation, punitive damages may be awarded.
True
In one appeals court case it was held to be a design defect to make an emergency stop button red as that color is attractive to children who push the button.
True
In the 19th century, consumers bore more of the cost of product-related injuries.
True
Intentional misrepresentation is also known as fraud.
True
Joint and several liability is liability rule in several states that allows each defendant to be potentially liable for the entire damage award when more than one firm have a similar defective product.
True
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. introduced the rule of negligence in tort for consumer products.
True
Not only must manufacturers produce products safely, they must also think about how consumers might misuse the products and then warn consumers not to engage in these kinds of dangerous activities.
True
Scienter means a defendant knew false information was being passed to another party.
True
Strict liability based on express warranty of safety was first based on contract law.
True
Strict liability for defective products may arise from either an implied warranty or an express warranty.
True
Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities is an old concept going back more than a century.
True
Strict liability was first applied based on implied warranties of safety of food and drink.
True
The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product defect recommends that a risk-utility balancing test be used.
True
The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product defect recommends that the distinction between strict liability and negligence be given less attention.
True
The Restatement (Third) of Torts, which some state courts have adopted, tends to abandon the traditional distinction between negligence and strict liability in design defect cases.
True
The Supreme Court of Alaska upheld a verdict of strict liability against a diet food producer who failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of using a diet food as baby food.
True
The Supreme Court of California, in Greenman v. Yuba Power, was the first court to adopt a general strict liability in tort rule in product-related injury cases.
True
The courts have held that firms in an industry could be held liable jointly for damages done by products they had produced.
True
The doctrine of strict liability has been extended to include cases where manufacturers produce a poorly designed product.
True
The doctrine of strict liability in tort applies primarily to cases of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and to design defects.
True
The main author of the Restatement (Second) of Torts is the American Law Institute.
True
The rule of caveat emptor meant that if there was no privity between a producer and an injured consumer, the consumer had no case against the producer.
True
The rule of strict liability in torts used in the Restatement (Second) of Torts helped bring about nationwide adoption of the rule.
True
The sophisticated user defense and bulk-supplier doctrine are similar in reducing liability for product sellers.
True
The tort of fraud requires the wrongdoer to have a legal relationship with the tort victim.
True
The tort of interference with contractual relations occurs when Party C attempts to get Party A, who has a contract with Party B, to breach the contract in favor of doing business with Party C.
True
The tort system in the U.S. is estimated to cost about $250 billion a year.
True
There are statutes that limit product liability for certain products and services.
True
About a half-million tort cases are filed each year.
True
An express warranty is a promise that is clearly stated by the seller to the buyer; it is a part of the contract.
True
At least $100 billion has been devoted to asbestos litigation.
True
In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products the Supreme Court of California made negligence in tort the general rule in products liability cases.
False
In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products the court imposed strict liability on a producer for failure to warn the consumer of dangers involved in using the machine.
False
In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. the court held Buick not liable because it did not make the wheel that collapsed and was the proximate cause of injury.
False
In a suit for fraud, a plaintiff is presumed to have had the right to rely on any information provided by defendant.
False
In liability cases claiming a design defect, the plaintiff argues that the product was so poorly manufactured at the plant that it caused the plaintiff's harms.
False
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. introduced the rule of strict liability in tort for consumer products.
False
Privity of contract is a contract with an express warranty.
False
Producers who do not know of that their products are potentially dangerous, because such dangers are not revealed until after years of use, are not liable for damages.
False
Scienter in tort law means the plaintiff can see the results of a fraud that has been suffered.
False
Since the Greenman v. Yuba Power Products decision, strict liability in tort has meant intentional harms committed by manufacturers against consumers.
False
Strict liability based on express warranties was applied originally to alcohol and tobacco products.
False
Strict liability in tort was applied to food and drink first because of the promises of safety made by the sellers on the labels of their products.
False
Strict liability was used as a standard by courts before caveat emptor was used.
False
The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product defect eliminates the concern about inadequate warnings that was critical to the Second version.
False
The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product defect recommends that courts use a cost-benefit test to see if added safety is worthwhile.
False
The Restatement (Third) of Torts replaced the Second for the standard on product liability in 2010.
False
The consumer must purchase the (defective) product directly from the manufacturer in order to prevail in strict liability based on express warranty.
False
The legal standard that imposes tort liability on manufacturers when they produce a product negligently so that it hurts a consumer was first introduced in 1865.
False
The rule of negligence in tort holds the producer responsible for any defect that is the proximate cause of an injury suffered by the user of the product.
False
The tort of fraud requires the wrongdoer to intentionally mislead another party.
False
The tort system in the U.S. is estimated to cost right about $40 billion per year.
False
There are no defenses available in strict liability cases; manufacturers must pay whenever a consumer is injured.
False
Under the old rule of caveat emptor a buyer injured by a defective product had no ability to sue the maker.
False
Under the rule of strict liability in tort the injured party must show that the manufacturer failed to meet the standard of care of the industry in question.
False
When Tylenol was sued for failure to warn of possible damage to livers by Tylenol users who drink alcohol, the court held Tylenol's make not liable because alcohol is an unavoidably dangerous product.
False
When a person suffers an injury due to deliberate deception, there may be a tort of defamation.
False
A warranty is an assurance from the manufacturer that its products will meet certain quality standards.
True
To win a case based on strict liability against a producer, the plaintiff must show that the product was defective, that a defect in it caused it to be dangerous, and the defect was the proximate cause of the injury.
True
Under the negligence standard, a manufacturer is required to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in the production of its product.
True
When a company buys dangerous chemicals to use in the workplace, it is presumed to be a sophisticated buyer who should know of many of the dangers involved in using the product, so strict liability is not likely to apply to the seller in case of work injury.
True
