Question 1

The dangers associated with using sharp knives are so commonly known that manufacturers need not warn users of those dangers.​

Accepted Answer

The answer of The dangers associated with using sharp knives...

Question 2

No court engages in a risk-utility analysis to determine whether the risk of harm from a product is outweighed by its utility.​

Accepted Answer

Many courts do engage in a risk-utility analysis to determine whether the risk of harm from a product is outweighed by its utility. This analysis involves weighing the potential harm of the product against the benefits it provides, such as its usefulness or necessity.

Question 3

An action in strict product liability requires that a product be reasonably dangerous to a user or consumer.​

Accepted Answer

An action in strict product liability requires that a product be unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer. This means that the danger posed by the product outweighs its benefits and that an ordinary consumer would not expect the danger given the product's intended use.

Question 4

As a defense to product liability, comparative negligence completely absolves a defendant of liability.​

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence does not completely absolve a defendant of liability. Instead, it reduces the amount of damages that the defendant is responsible for based on the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff.

Question 5

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 6

An inadequate warning will support the imposition of liability on a strict product liability basis.​

Accepted Answer

An inadequate warning may lead to liability on a strict product liability basis if it is found that the warning was necessary for the safe use of the product and the failure to provide such a warning made the product unreasonably dangerous.

Question 7

When a user is injured as a result of a seller's misrepresentation, the basis of product liability may be the tort of fraud.​

Accepted Answer

The tort of fraud can be a basis for product liability when a user is injured as a result of a seller's misrepresentation. The user can sue the seller for misrepresentation or fraud, which is a type of intentional tort. The seller can be held liable for the harm caused to the user due to the misrepresentation.

Question 8

Sal owns Reclamation & Restoration (R&R), a demolition company. Demolition of a Quad City brownstone by an R&R crew injures Ted, a spectator. Under the theory of strict liability, Sal must pay for Ted's injury​
A) ​only if Ted's injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
B) ​only if Ted's injury was reasonably foreseeable.
C) ​only if the R&R crew was at fault.
D) ​whether or not the R&R crew was at fault.

Accepted Answer

Under strict liability, the fault of the defendant is not relevant. As the owner of the demolition company, Sal is responsible for any harm caused by the actions of his employees in the course of their work, regardless of whether or not he was directly at fault or if the harm was foreseeable or not. Therefore, Sal must pay for Ted's injury whether or not the R&R crew was at fault.

Question 9

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

Accepted Answer

Strict liability can extend to injured bystanders if the product is deemed unreasonably dangerous and causes harm, as manufacturers and sellers are responsible for ensuring their products do not pose a risk to anyone, including bystanders.

Question 10

A product liability action based on negligence requires privity of contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant-manufacturer.​

Accepted Answer

Product liability actions based on negligence do not require privity of contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant-manufacturer. This means that a plaintiff who was not the buyer of the product can still sue the manufacturer for injuries caused by the product.

Question 11

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 activity will be​
A) ​none of the choices.
B) ​Roadbuilders and Sky-Hi.
C) ​Roadbuilders only.
D) ​Sky-Hi only.

Accepted Answer

Both Roadbuilders and Sky-Hi are engaged in activities involving the use and storage of explosives, which are considered abnormally dangerous and give rise to strict liability for any injuries caused.

Question 12

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

Accepted Answer

Market-share liability is a legal doctrine that allows plaintiffs to sue multiple manufacturers of a harmful product when the specific source of harm is unknown, not a method for manufacturers to sell shares of liability.

Question 13

Level Grade Engineering, Inc., sometimes uses explosives to prepare land for construction projects. Strict liability is imposed on this activity because​
A) ​Level Grade is a corporation.
B) ​the activity is inherently negligent.
C) ​the activity is extremely risky.
D) ​the amount of liability can be added to the costs of construction.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability is imposed on activities that are inherently risky, such as using explosives. This means that Level Grade Engineering, Inc. is responsible for any harm caused by the use of explosives, regardless of whether they were negligent or not.

Question 14

Sno Sports LLC makes and sells a snowboard to Toby. Sno Sports fails to exercise "due care" to make the board safe, and Toby is injured as a result. Sno Sports is most likely liable for​
A) ​any alteration of the skis after Sno Sports sold them.
B) ​misrepresentation.
C) ​negligence.
D) ​nothing.

Accepted Answer

Sno Sports LLC can be held liable for negligence as they failed to exercise the required standard of care to ensure the snowboard was safe, which resulted in Toby's injury. Misrepresentation and alteration of the skis after sale are not relevant to the scenario. Additionally, nothing cannot be the answer as Sno Sports' action of not exercising due care caused Toby's injury.

Question 15

One defense to product liability is to show that there is no basis for the plaintiff's claim.​

Accepted Answer

It is true that one defense to product liability is to argue that there is no basis for the plaintiff's claim. This can be done by demonstrating that the product was not defective or that the plaintiff did not suffer harm as a result of the product.

Question 16

Marketing puffery has traditionally been recognized in product liability law as a product defect.​

Accepted Answer

Marketing puffery is not considered a product defect in product liability law.

Question 17

Parties who can be held liable on a theory of product liability for physical injury or property damage caused by defective goods include all of the following except​
A) ​a lessor of the goods.
B) ​a maker of the goods.
C) ​a seller of the goods.
D) ​a user of the goods.

Accepted Answer

A user of the goods cannot be held liable on a theory of product liability for physical injury or property damage caused by defective goods. Liability for harm caused by defective products is typically imposed on manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of the products.

Question 18

To support the imposition of strict product liability, a product must be substantially changed from the time it is sold to the time an injury occurs.​

Accepted Answer

The statement is incorrect. Strict product liability applies regardless of whether the product has been substantially changed. If a product is defective and causes injury, the manufacturer, distributor, or seller can be held liable, regardless of the state of the product at the time of injury.

Question 19

Government regulations can preempt claims for product liability.​

Accepted Answer

When there are government regulations in place regarding a particular product, those regulations may preempt claims for product liability by setting the standard of care for the product's manufacture, design, or labeling. This means that if a product complies with applicable regulations, it may be more difficult for a plaintiff to successfully bring a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer or seller of that product. However, it is important to note that compliance with government regulations is not always a complete defense to product liability claims, and there may still be other grounds on which a plaintiff could seek to hold a company responsible for harm caused by a product.

Question 20

Assumption of risk is no defense to a product liability action.​

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk may be a defense in a product liability action if the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumes the inherent risks involved with using the product. However, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff had knowledge and appreciation of the risk as well as voluntarily chosen to take the risk.

Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

The dangers associated with using sharp knives are so commonly known that manufacturers need not warn users of those dangers.

No court engages in a risk-utility analysis to determine whether the risk of harm from a product is outweighed by its utility.

An action in strict product liability requires that a product be reasonably dangerous to a user or consumer.

As a defense to product liability, comparative negligence completely absolves a defendant of liability.

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

An inadequate warning will support the imposition of liability on a strict product liability basis.

When a user is injured as a result of a seller's misrepresentation, the basis of product liability may be the tort of fraud.

Sal owns Reclamation & Restoration (R&R) , a demolition company. Demolition of a Quad City brownstone by an R&R crew injures Ted, a spectator. Under the theory of strict liability, Sal must pay for Ted's injury

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

A product liability action based on negligence requires privity of contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant-manufacturer.

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 activity will be

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

Level Grade Engineering, Inc., sometimes uses explosives to prepare land for construction projects. Strict liability is imposed on this activity because

Sno Sports LLC makes and sells a snowboard to Toby. Sno Sports fails to exercise "due care" to make the board safe, and Toby is injured as a result. Sno Sports is most likely liable for

One defense to product liability is to show that there is no basis for the plaintiff's claim.

Marketing puffery has traditionally been recognized in product liability law as a product defect.

Parties who can be held liable on a theory of product liability for physical injury or property damage caused by defective goods include all of the following except

To support the imposition of strict product liability, a product must be substantially changed from the time it is sold to the time an injury occurs.

Government regulations can preempt claims for product liability.

Assumption of risk is no defense to a product liability action.