Chapter 20

32) As a general rule, bystanders who are injured by a defective product belonging to someone else cannot claim strict liability in tort damages against the manufacturer of that product.

False 393

21) A ladder that is designed with four bolts for each rung but is manufactured with only two bolts per rung is an example of a design defect.

False 391 manufacturing defect

15) The doctrine of strict liability in tort actually uses contract principles, not common law tort principles, to impose liability on product sellers.

False 388

27. Which of the following examples would probably not lead to a products liability claim based on strict liability in tort? A. Buying veterinarian services to give a dog a vaccination B. Buying food at a fast-food restaurant C. Buying a prescription which was filled at a pharmacy D. Buying a new motorcycle from a Harley-Davidson dealer

A. Buying veterinarian services to give a dog a vaccination

18. In pursuit of tort reform, which of the following has not been suggested as a means of controlling the explosive growth in the number of strict liability in tort cases: A. Eliminating or limiting the use of joint and several liability B. Barring the use of the res ispa loquitur theory C. Placing a "cap" on punitive damages D. Shortening the statute of limitations E. Encouraging the passage of a Federal products liability statute

A. Eliminating or limiting the use of joint and several liability

31) As a general rule, a lack of privity will bar a plaintiff's recovery against a product manufacturer.

False 388

14. A number of public policy arguments have been advanced in support of the strict liability in tort theory as it relates to defective products. Which of the following is not considered to be one of those arguments: A. The seller is in a better position to distribute the cost of any damages over all of its customers B. It is unreasonable to expect customers to bear the cost of insurance protection against potential personal injuries C. The seller is in a better position than the buyers to determine whether or not a product is defective D. Public interest in human life and health requires the law to provide maximum protection against unreasonably dangerous products

B. It is unreasonable to expect customers to bear the cost of insurance protection against potential personal injuries

21. In order to recover in a products liability case which is based on strict liability, the plaintiff must prove that the product had a defect: A. That the defendant knew of the existence of he defect B. That made the product unreasonably dangerous C. That was caused by the defendant D. That affected the selling price of the product E. That was eliminated by a new or different model

B. That made the product unreasonably dangerous

17. Some courts have refused to extend the strict liability in tort rule to sellers of used products claiming: A. That their profit from the sales of such goods is minimal B. That the sellers have no direct relationship with the manufacturer of the goods C. That all used goods are generally sold "as is" D. That public policy allows the sale of defective goods at lower prices in the used goods market

B. That the sellers have no direct relationship with the manufacturer of the goods

26. When comparing statutes of repose with statutes of limitations, which of the following statements is true? A. Neither type of statute applies to property damage claims B. Statutes of repose are federal law that supersede state law C. A staute of repose requires that a cause of action be initiated within a specified number of years after a defective product was first sold D. Statutes of limitations, but not statutes of repose, set limits on bringing legal actions

C. A staute of repose requires that a cause of action be initiated within a specified number of years after a defective product was first sold

19. All but which of the following sellers can be exposed to strict liability in tort liability? A. Lessees of defective products B. Distributors of free product samples C. Casual sellers D. Restaurant operators E. All of the above

C. Casual sellers

28. Geek is pledging at the Gamma Upsilon Phi (GUF) fraternity in order to become a member. As part of his initiation process, Geek is required to take a bite out of an apple that is on a bear trap that has been set put to trap a bear. Geek tries, but the trap slams shut on his nose, injuring him. Geek files a strict liability in tort suit against the sport equipment store which sold the bear trap to the fraternity. Which of the following, if true, would probably allow the sports equipment store to avoid liability? A. geek was not the purchaser of the trap B. The bear trap was sold by the sports equipment store, but shipped to the fraternity directly from the manufacturer C. It was an unforeseeable misuse for anyone to use a bear trap in this way D. The store exercised ordinary care when selling the bear trap

C. It was an unforeseeable misuse for anyone to use a bear trap in this way

23. What is the necessity of having a "defect" in a products liability case which is based on the strict liability in tort theory? A. Because only the party who caused the defect can be held liable B. Its presence would eliminate liability for the defendant C. Its presence is a required element of proof in a strict liability in tort case D. Its presence is not necessary, but can be used to eliminate the need to show proof of an injury E. Its presence would permit a finding of punitive damages

C. Its presence is a required element of proof in a strict liability in tort case

25. When a product is found to be defective because of a failure to warn, you might conclude: A. That the manufacturer failed to comply with its duty to warn against all possible dangers that might exist in connection with a product B. A state of art design will be accepted provided customers are warned that there are no safer design currently available C. That the product would not have been unreasonably dangerous if consumers had been warned about certain dangers of the products D. That the manufacturers produced an unreasonably dangerous product which consumers should have been informed

C. That the product would not have been unreasonably dangerous if consumers had been warned about certain dangers of the products

18) The strict liability in tort doctrine requires that sellers become insurers against all injuries caused by their products.

False 390

22. If a manufacturer produces a product, and then sells it to a wholesaler who, in turn, sells it to a retailer, who, in turn, sells it to a consumer who is injured as a result of using the product, which of the parties in the chain of distribution for the product would be potentially liable under a strict liability in tort theory? A. The manufacturer B. The manufacturer and the wholesaler C. The manufacturer, wholesaler, and the retailer D. Only the party actually at fault for the defect

C. The manufacturer, wholesaler, and the retailer

15. The classification of product defects includes all but which of the following: A. Warning defects B. Design defects C. Use Defects F. Manufacturing defects

C. Use Defects

20. Someone who is injured by a purchased product might be able to recover on the basis of: A. Negligence or strict liability B. Breach of warranty C. Breach of warranty, negligence, or strict liability D. Breach of warranty or strict liability E. Breach of warranty or negligence

D. Breach of warranty or strict liability

9. Which of the following situations would not give rise to a strict liability in tort action: A. Buying a car from Slick Motors B. filing a prescription at a drug store C. Purchasing food in a restaurant D. Purchasing legal services E. B and D, above

D. Purchasing legal services

13. If Amy is injured by a product manufactured by the Blitz Company, Amy must prove all but which of the following in order the strict liability in tort doctrine against Blitz: A. That the blitz product was defective B. That the defect was in the product at the time it left Blitz C. That the defect in the product is what caused the injuries suffered by Amy D. That Blitz was negligent in manufacturing the product

D. That Blitz was negligent in manufacturing the product

16. Laura is a manufacturer of a product that she ships to Megan, a distributor. Megan distributes the product to Seth, a wholesaler and Seth, in turn, sells the product to Jim, a retailer. Jim eventually sells the product to Zack, a consumer. If Zack is injured as a result of a defect in the product, the strict liability in tort theory would permit Zack to sue: A. Only Jim B. Jim and Seth C. Jim, Seth and Megan D. Only Laura E. Jim, Seth, Megan and Laura

E. Jim, Seth, Megan and Laura

19) Because of possible harm to your teeth, an example of an unreasonably dangerous product would be a candy bar that contains nuts.

False

27) A plaintiff is always guaranteed recovery for injures if he or she claims strict liability in tort.

False

24. All but which of the following statements about products liability is true? A. strict liability in tort is actually a "no fault" form of remedy B. Failure to warn about a generally known danger will usually lead to liability for the manufacturer C. A problem with using a negligence theory for purposes of products liability recovery is that the plaintiff must show some specific act of negligence by the defendant D. Strict liability in tort applies to both property damage and physical injury that results E. To be geld liable for strict liability in tort, the defective product must be in essentially the same condition as when it left the defendant's control

E. To be geld liable for strict liability in tort, the defective product must be in essentially the same condition as when it left the defendant's control

36) Failure to warn about a product's dangers can make an otherwise safe product defective.

False

24) A consumer who purchases a defective product at a garage sale can hold the seller of that product liable for injuries sustained as a result of the products defects.

False 394 Occasional or casual seller not liable

25) As a general rule, a plaintiff's contributory negligence is a defense available to a defendant in a strict liability in tort action.

False 395

26) Even in cases where a buyer misuses a product, strict liability in tort can be asserted to make the defendant liable.

False 396

29) Misuse of a product is defined as a foreseeable, but unintended, use.

False 396 neither

30) A business that is part of the chain of product distribution between the manufacturer and consumer is said to be in a position of horizontal privity with consumer.

False vertical

37) Generally, sellers must design their products to be safe when foreseeablely misused.

False?

20) Because of possible harm to your teeth, an example of an unreasonably dangerous product would be a candy bar that contains pieces of nutshells.

True

35) If only one item is defective out of thousands of similar items that were manufactured without defects, this one defective product would not be a basis for a products liability lawsuit.

True

16) The problem with using UCC warranty liability to hold seller's liable for product related injuries is that the seller can always attempt to assert lack of privity, lack of notice, and disclaimers as defenses to avoid liability.

True 388

17) Before strict liability can be imposed upon the seller, it must first be shown that the product is unreasonably dangerous or defective.

True 390

34) In a product liability action based on strict liability, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a defect and who caused the defect.

True 390

22) The fact that a knife is sharp and, therefore, can cause cuts, is so obvious as not to require a label warning users about sharpness.

True 393

23) Strict liability in tort permits any reasonably foreseeable plaintiff injured by a defective product to sue for damages even if they were not the user or consumer of the product.

True 393

33) Under strict liability for products liability, all parties in the chain of distribution are liable, even when the product was not defective when it left that party's hands.

True 394

28) A plaintiff who continues to use a product after having become aware of the product's unreasonably dangerous character is barred from recovery for subsequent injury caused by the product.

True 396