Apply Brief Hypotheticals 7 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Apply Brief Hypotheticals 7 PDF

Description

Mack is injured by a tractor manufactured by WestCo. In order to defend against a negligence claim based upon the product, WestCo. may show that it exercised "due care" by all of the following except: a. placing adequate warnings on the label to inform the user of dangers to which an ordinary person might not be aware.

b. using the appropriate production process.

c. showing the absence of privity of contract between it and the consumer.

d. inspecting and testing any purchased components used in the final product.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response c

Ginger is a retired school teacher who makes baked goods in her spare time. She occasionally delivers a batch of her cookies to the neighborhood restaurant to be sold at the cash register. One of her batches of cookies causes more than twenty people to become extremely sick with food poisoning. Which of the following statements is applicable? a. Ginger cannot be sued under the theory of product liability.

b. Ginger can be sued under the manufacturing defect theory of product liability.

c. Ginger can be sued under the negligence theory of product liability.

d. Ginger can be sued under the strict product liability theory of product liability.

Hide Feedback Correct

Solution Correct Response a

John purchases a blender from JuiceMart. A crack in the plastic casing causes the blade to swing out of control and fly at John’s arm. John is shaken up by the incident but otherwise uninjured. John’s strict product liability suit will most likely: a. succeed because JuiceMart was in the business of selling that product.

b. succeed because the blender was not substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained.

c. fail because the blender was not in a defective condition.

d. fail because John did not incur physical harm to self or property.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response d

Carl sues Goldman Manufacturing, alleging he suffered injuries as a result of a design defect in Goldman's food processor. To prevail in this lawsuit, Carl must show that Goldman Manufacturing: a. failed to adequately warn him of the danger of harm.

b. had a reasonable alternative design available, which it failed to use.

c. met the relevant statute of limitations or repose.

d. met his consumer expectations and that his injury was unintended.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response b

United Tires uses a faulty design in designing its tires that causes them to blow out after 50,000 miles. Jessa is injured when her right-rear tire incurs a blowout. She can sue United Tires under which of the following theories of strict liability? a. Manufacturing defect

b. Unreasonably dangerous product

c. Market-share liability

d. Design defect

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response d

Emily, while driving a car manufactured by Toyosan, suffered a side impact collision from another driver. Despite the fact that Toyosan’s air bag deployed, Emily hit her head against the steering wheel, causing damage to her face and teeth. If Emily sued Toyosan for strict product liability, the court would likely conclude that: a. Emily misused the product in driving the car, causing her injuries regardless of any defect in the air bag.

b. Emily was comparatively negligent for her own injuries.

c. Toyosan’s air bag was defective because it did not meet the expectations of a reasonable consumer.

d. Toyosan’s air bag did not have a defective product design, and it deployed exactly as expected.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response c

Fred sued Document Security Company, alleging he had suffered injuries to his hands as a result of attempting to fix a jam in one of Document Security's paper shredders. Fred alleged the shredder was defective because it failed to contain warnings regarding the dangers to fingers and hands while attempting to fix jams. In order to succeed, Fred will have to show that: a. all risk of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.

b. foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.

c. paper shredders are inherently dangerous products.

d. the injuries would not have occurred but for the absence of the warnings.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response

b

Martha is walking from her office building to her car in a torrential downpour with an umbrella manufactured by Umbrellas USA, Inc. She is struck by lightning and files suit, claiming the manufacturer failed to include a warning. A court would likely find that: a. the umbrella should have included a warning label against using an umbrella in a lightning storm.

b. the seller should have provided a warning because of the foreseeable misuse of an umbrella in a rainstorm with lightning.

c. the plaintiff was partially at fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence.

d. there is no duty to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known, such as the risk of lightning occurring during a rainstorm.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response d

Harry discovers that a chemical compound has had an adverse impact on his land. The chemical compound is manufactured by five companies. Harry cannot identify which manufacturer's chemical caused the adverse impact to his land. Harry files a product liability lawsuit against all five companies. Harry's case will: a. not be dismissed against any manufacturer because of market-share liability.

b. not be dismissed because Harry can show harm to his land.

c. be dismissed because he cannot apportion liability amongst the five companies.

d. be dismissed because he cannot identify which company contaminated his land.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response a

David, a ten-year-old, purchased a plastic snow sled from Qmart. He went sledding, lost control, hit a tree, and was injured. David’s parents filed a negligence lawsuit in a state court against Qmart, alleging that the store should not have sold this type of sled because it was difficult to steer and had no brakes, making it unreasonably dangerous. Qmart contended that sledding is an inherently dangerous activity and that David assumed the risks involved when he went sledding. The court probably found that Qmart was: a. not liable because David’s injuries were unforeseeable.

b. liable because David did not know the risks of sledding.

c. liable because sledding is unreasonable.

d. not liable because David assumed the risks of sledding.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response d

Harvey is driving while intoxicated in his new truck when his tire blows out. He loses control of the truck and crashes into a tree, causing injury to himself and to his vehicle. The tire is determined to be defective. Which of the following defenses would be the most likely to be raised by the tire manufacturer in a product liability cause of action?

a. Comparative negligence

b. Assumption of the risk

c. Product misuse

d. Preemption

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response a

A fast-food chain restaurant would not be liable for the failure to disclose the adverse health effects of eating its fatty food based on the defense of: a. preemption.

b. a commonly known danger.

c. assumption of the risk.

d. the knowledgeable user.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response d

Marcus's family purchased a trampoline in 2000. They sold the trampoline at a garage sale in 2010 to Zac's family. In 2012, Zac is injured while jumping on the trampoline when it collapses. If Zac's family sues the trampoline manufacturer in 2013, their lawsuit will likely be dismissed based on the: a. statute of limitations.

b. no privity of contract.

c. product misuse.

d. statute of repose.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response d

Astor Manufacturing stores hazardous and volatile chemicals in its warehouse. The warehouse has state-of-the-art equipment to make sure the chemicals do not explode. An unexpected earthquake shakes the warehouse, causing the chemicals to explode and injure William, a passerby on a nearby sidewalk. Astor Manufacturing is: a. liable to William only if the company was grossly negligent.

b. not liable to William because it satisfied its duty of care to passersby.

c. strictly liable for William’s injuries.

d. not liable to William because he voluntarily assumed the risk of injury.

Hide Feedback Correct

Solution Correct Response c

Glen is a dairy farmer who owns 500 milk cows. His fences are in poor repair, and his cows are often found eating the grass on Hank's land. Hank believes that Glen is responsible for damages to Hank's land on a theory of strict liability. The court will most likely find that Glen is: a. not liable because raising cattle is not an inherently dangerous activity.

b. liable because cattle are animals, not humans.

c. liable even though the animals did not pose a serious risk of harm to people.

d. liable because Glen did not contain his animals.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response a

West Agricultural Services, Inc. (“WAS”), stores approximately 100,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate on its property in three storage tanks for use in agriculture fertilizer. Ammonium nitrate is highly explosive if it comes into contact with an ignition source. WAS has taken all necessary precautions to prevent any explosions. If an explosion were to occur with resulting injuries, WAS could be liable under the strict liability theory for damages proximately caused by: a. an abnormally dangerous activity.

b. a manufacturing defect.

c. product liability.

d. a design defect.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response a

Exxon owned a gasoline station in Virginia that it used for years. The station had five underground gasoline storage tanks that were not properly maintained. The property was sold to AFA, which discovered gasoline contamination of the soil. AFA filed a lawsuit in Virginia state court contending that Exxon should be held strictly liable for the cost of cleaning up the property. The court most likely found that Exxon was: a. liable because gasoline storage is an abnormally dangerous activity.

b. liable because Exxon had not exercised reasonable care.

c. not liable because Exxon had used extreme care to see that no one was harmed.

d. not liable because gasoline storage is not an abnormally dangerous activity.

Hide Feedback Correct Solution Correct Response d...