Question 1

Universal Assembly Company makes espresso machines and sells one to Vim through a misrepresentation on the label on which Vim relies and that results in an injury to Vim. Universal is most likely liable for

Accepted Answer

Universal Assembly Company made a misrepresentation on the label which is an act of fraud. This misrepresentation led to an injury to Vim, making the company liable for the injury.

Question 2

Heat Wave, Inc., makes portable heaters. To pay its liability for injuries to consumers harmed by defective heaters, Heat Wave can pass the costs on to

Accepted Answer

Heat Wave, Inc. can pass the costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices. This is because the cost of the liability will ultimately impact the company's profitability, and in order to maintain profitability, Heat Wave, Inc. may choose to increase the price of its heaters. Passing the cost on to suppliers through reverse kickbacks or the government through direct payments is not a common or practical solution. Market share liability may apply in some cases, but it does not address the issue of Heat Wave, Inc. being held directly responsible for the harm caused by its defective heaters.

Question 3

Flo buys a Go! battery that, if used in a Hi-Digital music player, which can be powered only by an IntraChemico battery, may cause the player to explode. Flo is not aware of the danger, Go!'s instructions do not warn of it, and Go! batteries are the same shape as IntraChemico batteries. Flo puts the Go! battery in a Hi-Digital player, which explodes, injuring Flo. Go!'s seller is most likely

Accepted Answer

The seller of the Go! battery is likely liable because Flo's misuse (putting it in a Hi-Digital player) was reasonably foreseeable. Even though the Go! battery was not designed for this use, the fact that it is the same shape as the IntraChemico battery and there were no warnings or instructions provided by the seller make it foreseeable that consumers could make this mistake.

Question 4

Pooltime, Inc., makes aboveground swimming pools, which it sells to Quality Home Stores. Quality Home sells the pools to consumers, including Ron, who lets Sara use his pool. Sara is injured while using the pool. In a product liability suit based on strict liability, Sara may recover from

Accepted Answer

Both Pooltime and Quality Home could be held liable for Sara's injuries under strict liability. As the manufacturer of the pool, Pooltime has a duty to ensure that its product is safe for its foreseeable uses. Quality Home, as the retailer, has a duty to ensure that the product it sells is reasonably safe for its foreseeable uses. Since Sara's use of the pool was foreseeable, both Pooltime and Quality Home may be held liable for her injuries.

Question 5

Mixing Equipment, Inc. (MEI), makes paint-mixing equipment. Nia is injured by a defective MEI mixer. A statute restricts the time within which, after Nia is injured, she may file a product liability suit. This is a statute of

Accepted Answer

A statute of limitations restricts the time period in which a lawsuit can be filed after a person has been injured.

Question 6

Orin is injured while using mountain-climbing equipment made by Peaks Pike Corporation. A statute that limits the time within which Orin can file a product liability suit against Peaks, beginning with the date of the equipment's manufacture, is a statute of

Accepted Answer

A statute that limits the time within which Orin can file a product liability suit, beginning with the date of the equipment's manufacture, is a statute of repose. Unlike a statute of limitations, which starts the clock ticking when the plaintiff is injured or discovers the injury, a statute of repose gives an absolute deadline for filing a suit, regardless of when the injury was discovered.

Question 7

Kitchen Kutters Corporation (KKC) makes kitchen knives and other consumer products. KKC could be liable for a design defect if there is a foreseeable risk of harm posed by a product and

Accepted Answer

A design defect can be established if there is a reasonable alternative design that would have reduced or eliminated the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product. If no such alternative design exists, there may not be a design defect. The other options may be relevant to establishing negligence, but not necessarily design defect liability.

Question 8

My-T Fine Company makes a surfboard, which it sells to Nature Sports Equipment, a distributor. Nature Sports sells the board to Ocean Store, where Pat buys it. Pat gives it to Quinn, who suffers an injury due a defect in the board. If My-T Fine, Nature Sports, and Ocean Store were not negligent, can they be liable to Quinn for the injury If so, on what basis, and for what reasons

Accepted Answer

The answer of My-T Fine Company makes a surfboard, which...

Question 9

Eagle Engineering, Inc., and Fast Code Corporation market competitive software products. Eagle launches an advertising campaign in which Eagle claims that Fast Code, instead of testing its software before it is marketed, has its customers "test" the software by using it. Fast Code knows this is not true but begins to lose sales to Eagle. On what grounds could Fast Code sue Eagle for damage to Fast Code's reputation

Accepted Answer

The answer of Eagle Engineering, Inc., and Fast Code Corporation...

Question 10

Infinite Variety Corporation makes products that Jostle Sales Company sells to consumers online, through catalogs, and in retail outlets. Holding makers and sellers strictly liable for the cost of injuries to consumers from harmful or defective products is based in part on the policy that

Accepted Answer

The answer of Infinite Variety Corporation makes products that Jostle...

Question 11

Digital Systems, Inc. (DSI), makes storage media and other peripheral computer products. A DSI product may be unreasonably dangerous due to

Accepted Answer

The product may be unreasonably dangerous due to a defect in its design or an inadequate warning. Both of these factors could contribute to the product being unreasonably dangerous.

Question 12

Fun Toyz Corporation makes surfboards, which it sells to consumers, including Holly and Ira. Due to a defect, Holly is injured while using her new board. Ira's board has the same defect, but he is not injured. In a product liability suit based on strict product liability, Fun Toyz may be liable to

Accepted Answer

Under strict product liability, the manufacturer can be held liable for any injuries caused by a defective product, regardless of whether the consumer was the one who purchased the product or not. In this case, although both Holly and Ira purchased the surfboards from Fun Toyz, only Holly was injured due to the defect. Therefore, Fun Toyz may be liable to Holly only.

Quiz 6: Torts and Product Liability