Chapter 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability Review

The types of product defects that have traditionally been recognized in product liability law include manufacturing defects.

TRUE

Under a theory of market-share liability, a manufacturer sells "shares" of its potential strict liability and thereby spreads the risk and the cost.

FALSE

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

fraud.

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 appli¬cation of this doctrine is in the area of

product liability.

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

suffered an injury caused by the defect.

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 li¬ability if it cannot be proved which of the parties

supplied the particular product that caused the injury.

SurgeStop Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for elec-tronic devices. Rollo files a product liability suit against SurgeStop, alleg¬ing a warning defect. In deciding whether to hold SurgeStop liable, the court may consider

the obvious risks of this product.

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

Soda Bubbles is making a profit from its activities.

A manufacturing defect is a departure from a product unit's design specifications that results in products that are physically flawed.

TRUE

A product liability action based on negligence does not require privity of contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant-manufacturer.

TRUE

Because many products cannot be made entirely safe for all uses, sellers or lessors are liable only for products that are unreasonably dangerous.

TRUE

Generally, a seller must warn those who purchase its product of the harm that can result from the foreseeable misuse of the product.

TRUE

Manufacturers must use due care in inspecting and testing any purchased components used in a product.

TRUE

Manufacturers must use due care in selecting the materials to be used in a product.

TRUE

Misrepresentation in an ad is enough to show an intent to induce the reliance of anyone who may use the product.

TRUE

Statutes of repose places outer times limit on product liability actions.

TRUE

An action in strict product liability requires that a product be in a defective condition caused by its purchaser.

FALSE

An injured party may sue only the manufacturer of defective products that are subject to comprehensive federal regulatory schemes.

FALSE

Generally, the strict liability of manufactures and other sellers does not extend to injured bystanders.

FALSE

People who keep domestic animals are strictly liable for any harm inflicted by the animals.

FALSE

Sellers are required to take precautions against every conceivable misuse of a product.

FALSE

The doctrine of strict liability can be applied to sellers of goods, including manufacturers, but not distributors.

FALSE

The extreme risk of an activity is a defense against imposing strict liability.

FALSE

There is a duty to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known.

FALSE

To successfully assert a design defect, a plaintiff has to show that no reasonable alternative design was available.

FALSE

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

Fine Motor and General Mechanix.

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

Gallagher and Helga.

Garden Tool Company makes chain saws. Hadrian is injured while using a Garden Tool saw and sues the company for product liability based on neg-ligence. To win, Hadrian must show that

Garden Tool did not use due care with respect to the trimmer.

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

Ian's discovery of an injury caused by the opener.

The law imposes strict liability as a matter of public policy based in part on the assumption that manufacturers can better bear the costs associated with injuries caused by their products.

TRUE

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 activ¬ity will be

Roadbuilders and Sky-Hi.

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 in¬jured while using a Sea & Surf board that he bought from UV Sports. In a product liabil¬ity suit based on strict li¬ability, Wen may recover from

Sea & Surf, Tropical Marketing, or UV Sports.

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 British court.

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 consumer's unforeseeable misuse of a fan.

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

advantages and disadvantages.

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

an available alternative design.

The brakes on a train owned by Rolling Stock Railway Inc. malfunction. The train rolls towards main¬te¬nance 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

assumption of risk.

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

knowledgeable user.

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

negligence.

MedBeat Inc., makes medical devices, including heart pacemakers. Nina, a heart patient, files a product liabil¬ity 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

the omission of a warning renders the pacemaker not reasonably safe.