Question 1

Paul buys a bottle of Great Wine. He drinks it and becomes very ill. Doctors find the wine contained anti-freeze. Paul may not sue Great Wine because he assumed the risk of drinking alcohol, an inherently dangerous product.

Accepted Answer

While it is true that alcohol is an inherently dangerous product and there is a certain assumed risk in consuming it, the fact that the wine contained anti-freeze is outside of the normal risks associated with consuming alcohol. It would be reasonable for Paul to expect that the wine he was purchasing and consuming was not contaminated with chemicals that could cause serious harm. Therefore, he may have grounds to sue Great Wine for their negligence in allowing anti-freeze to contaminate the wine.

Question 2

When a company buys dangerous chemicals to use in the workplace, it is presumed to be a sophisticated buyer who should know of many of the dangers involved in using the product, so strict liability is not likely to apply to the seller in case of work injury.

Accepted Answer

The statement is correct. In cases involving dangerous chemicals or products, the seller is not usually held strictly liable for any injuries caused to workers, as the company is deemed to be a sophisticated buyer who should be aware of the risks involved in using the product. This is known as the "sophisticated user doctrine."

Question 3

Common defenses in strict liability cases are product misuse or assumption of risk.

Accepted Answer

These are the two most common defenses in strict liability cases. Product misuse refers to the idea that the plaintiff was using the product in a way that it was not intended for, and assumption of risk means the plaintiff knew the risks associated with using the product but chose to use it anyway.

Question 4

Negligence is:

Accepted Answer

Negligence refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person or property. It is a legal concept related to carelessness or inattention, rather than intentional wrongdoing or failure to file tax returns properly. Negligence can give rise to liability and legal actions for damages.

Question 5

In Old Island Fumigation, a company was held liable for injuries caused by its fumigations activities despite it having been provided false information by the property owner.

Accepted Answer

In Old Island Fumigation v. Citizens State Bank, the court held that the fumigation company was still liable for injuries caused by its activities, even if it had been provided false information by the property owner. This is because the company had a duty to properly inform and protect the public, regardless of the actions of the property owner.

Question 6

A person puts much more air in a tire than recommended. The tire explodes, injuring the person. The person is unlikely to win a case against the tire maker because of product misuse.

Accepted Answer

The person's actions of putting much more air in the tire than recommended constitutes as product misuse, which is not the fault of the tire maker. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would win a case against the tire maker.

Question 7

There are statutes that limit product liability for certain products and services.

Accepted Answer

There are various statutes and laws that limit product liability for certain products and services, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Question 8

Any injuries suffered because a consumer ignored warning labels on prescription drugs will result in the manufacturer being strictly liability in tort.

Accepted Answer

While warning labels are important and manufacturers have a duty to properly warn consumers about potential risks associated with their products, consumers also have a responsibility to read and follow these warnings. If a consumer ignores clear warnings and suffers an injury as a result, they may be found partially or fully at fault for their own injury. Therefore, strict liability may not necessarily apply in these cases.

Question 9

In Old Island Fumigation, a company was not held liable for injuries caused by its fumigations activities because it could not have foreseen those injuries.

Accepted Answer

In Old Island Fumigation v. Marasco, the company was held liable for injuries caused by its fumigation activities because it could have foreseen those injuries and failed to take proper precautions to prevent them.

Question 10

Intentional torts occur when:

Accepted Answer

Intentional torts occur when the tortfeasor intends to invade a protected interest and knows or should have known of the consequences of their actions that resulted in an injury. Examples of intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass to land or chattels.

Question 11

A manufacturer is liable for injuries suffered by product users regardless of the sophistication of the buyer.

Accepted Answer

A manufacturer may not always be liable for injuries suffered by product users if the buyer is considered sophisticated and should have been aware of the product's risks, or if the product was misused contrary to the manufacturer's instructions. Liability often depends on the specific circumstances, including whether the manufacturer adequately warned of potential risks and whether the product was defective.

Question 12

The sophisticated user defense and bulk-supplier doctrine are similar in reducing liability for product sellers.

Accepted Answer

Both the sophisticated user defense and the bulk-supplier doctrine provide potential defenses for product sellers against liability claims. The sophisticated user defense argues that the user of the product had knowledge and understanding of the potential risks and dangers associated with the product, thus taking on some responsibility for their own injuries. The bulk-supplier doctrine acknowledges that manufacturers of raw materials or component parts may not have control over how their product is used or combined with other products, and therefore should not be held solely responsible for any resulting harm. Both defenses can limit the liability and potential damages that a product seller may face.

Question 13

Businesses can:

Accepted Answer

Businesses can be involved in both negligence and intentional torts. Negligence involves unintentional harm caused by a failure to take reasonable care, while intentional torts involve deliberate harm or interference with another's rights. Businesses can potentially be sued for both types of torts.

Question 14

There are no defenses available in strict liability cases; manufacturers must pay whenever a consumer is injured.

Accepted Answer

While strict liability does not require the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer, there are still some defenses available to the defendant. These defenses include contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and misuse of the product by the plaintiff.

Question 15

The legal rules governing injury from asbestos in the United States are much tougher on producers than is the case in the United Kingdom.

Accepted Answer

The legal rules for injury from asbestos in the United States are much more strict than in the United Kingdom. In the US, victims of asbestos exposure can sue for damages, and companies can be held liable for any harm caused by their products. By contrast, in the UK, there is a government-funded compensation scheme for those affected by asbestos, but there is no legal requirement for companies to compensate victims.

Question 16

Each year about one-half million tort suits are filed. Most are in ____ courts.

Accepted Answer

Most tort suits are filed in state courts, not in federal, appellate, municipal, or small claims courts.

Question 17

If consumption of large quantities of alcoholic beverages over time causes serious health problems a consumer may not recover in tort against the beverage makers because of she assumed the risk.

Accepted Answer

The assumption of risk defense may be used by alcoholic beverage manufacturers as a defense in product liability cases. If a consumer voluntarily consumes alcohol knowing the risks associated with it, they may not be able to recover damages from the beverage makers. However, there are certain exceptions to this defense such as when the beverage makers fail to provide adequate warning of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

Question 18

Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities is an old concept going back more than a century.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities has been recognized by courts for more than a century.

Question 19

Foreign firms that sell products in the U.S. do not have to bear the costs of compliance with strict liability standards.

Accepted Answer

Foreign firms that sell products in the U.S. must comply with strict liability standards similar to domestic firms in order to ensure the safety of their products for American consumers.

Question 20

Most tort suits are filed in:

Accepted Answer

The majority of tort claims are filed in state courts because tort law is primarily a matter of state law, and state courts have jurisdiction over state law issues. Federal courts may have jurisdiction over some tort claims, but only in certain circumstances, such as when the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Appellate courts do not typically hear tort cases as they are reserved for reviewing decisions made by lower courts. Small claims courts and municipal courts may hear certain types of tort cases, but those cases are typically limited in terms of the amount of damages that can be sought.

Quiz 7: Business Torts and Product Liability