Chapter 12 Multiple Choice

In a strict liability case

An act will not be considered a superseding cause of the plaintiff's injury if the act was foreseeable.

A seller must know that the buyer wants to buy a good for a particular purpose and must make a recommendation to the buyer that the buyer relies on to create

An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

In strict liability cases

Courts are fairly liberal about letting plaintiffs pose the question to the jury on the issue of whether a defect existed at the time it left the manufacturer.

A class action suit prevents

The court systems from being overloaded.

The key issue in a design-defect case based on a strict liability standard

The expectations of the cunsumer

In warranty cases of action,

1) Aspects of both contract and tort remedies are involved. 2) A contract remedy is more appropriate when the defect in the product involves only the quality of the product. 3) A tort remedy is more appropriate when the product is hazardous.

If a plaintiff injures himself while misusing a hammer, a court would

1) Conclude that the manufacturer had no duty to produce a hammer that could withstand this type of misuse. 2) Conclude that the plaintiff's actions were the proximate cause of his injuries. 3) Require that the defendant raise the plaintiff's misuse of the hammer as an affirmative defense.

An express warranty can be made by

1) Describing the good being warranted. 2) Affirming the fact or promise relating to the good. 3) Using a sample or model of the good in advertising.

A direct purchaser suing based on an implied warranty can recover for

1) Property damage and personal injury. 2) Incidental and consequential damages. 3) The difference between what the product would have been worth had it been as warranted and what it is worth with the defect.

Economic loss includes

1) The cost of repairs. 2) The cost of replacement. 3) Lost profits.

In strict liability cases

1) The courts focus on whether the product is in defective condition unreasonably dangerous. 2) Use both the consumer-expectation and risk utility test. 3) A product may be considered defective if it contains foreign objects.

In airbag cases

1) The question is whether airbags are necessary to make cares safe in the event of an accident. 2) Consumer advocates and representatives of the auto manufacturers clash over the reliability and safety of the airbags. 3) The plaintiff must prove that the lack of airbags enhanced the severity and extent of the plaintiff's injuries.

Assumption of risk is a defense in a

1) Warranty Action. 2) Strict Liability Action. 3) Negligence Action.

Breach-of-implied warranty actions

Can be brought against sellers of services and real estates.

The provisions of section 402A of the Restatement

Can be traced back to Judge Traynor's decision in Greenman v. Yuba products.

Plaintiffs in negligence actions

Can recover from the manufacturer even if they bought the product from a retailer.

Bystanders probably cannot recover

In implied-warranty cases.

In an express warranty case, a plaintiff

May not be able to recover unless she can show that she is not only a user but also a member of the general class of public that the manufacturer knew or should have known would have been reached by the warranty.

A warranty cause of action

Offers more generous damages to those whose damages are solely economic than a strict liability cause of action does.