FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 6: Product Liability

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 31

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Ceramic Corporation makes commercial ceramic products, including heat-resistant tiles for industrial ovens. When damage occurs in an oven at Duramold Inc., strict product liability may be imposed on Ceramic if the tiles sold to Duramold were

A) in perfect condition at the time of their sale.
B) damaged by their use.
C) substantially changed after their sale.
D) in a defective condition that was the proximate cause of the damage.

E) All of the above
F) C) and D)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 32

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Cold Play Corporation makes snowmobiles. Dale is injured when a defect unexpectedly accelerates the Cold Play vehicle he is driving, and he is thrown off. Esty, a hiker standing in the path of the unmanned vehicle, is struck and injured. In a suit based on strict product liability, Cold Play may be liable to

A) Dale and Esty.
B) Dale only.
C) Esty only.
D) none of the parties.

E) A) and D)
F) None of the above

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 33

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

For fraud to be the basis of liability in a product liability suit, the misrepresentation must have been unintentional.

The doctrine of strict liability applies to sellers of goods, including wholesalers.

Safe-T Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for electronic devices. Tina files a product liability suit against Safe-T, alleging a warning defect. In deciding whether to hold Safe-T liable, the court may consider

Baby Things Inc. makes and sells a crib to Cara. Baby Things fails to exercise "due care" to make the crib safe, and Cara's child Dua is injured as a result. Baby Things is most likely liable for

DIY-Haul, Inc., makes, sells, and leases hauling equipment for consumer use. Ed files a product liability suit against DIY-Haul, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider

Under the doctrine of strict liability, a defendant's liability depends on privity of contract.

Recharge Corporation makes batteries. Sol is injured when the Recharge battery in his phone bursts into flame. In Sol's product liability suit against the maker, alleging a design defect, the court may consider

Generally, a seller is not liable for failing to warn consumers of the harm that can result from a foreseeable misuse of a product.

The elements of an action in strict product liability include that a plaintiff must have incurred harm by the use or consumption of a product.

A manufacturer or seller has a duty to warn about a risk that is obvious or commonly known.

Petro Parts Inc. makes and sells parts for the repair of motor vehicles. Olsen suffers a loss when a defective Petro part causes damage to her car's engine. With respect to Olsen's product liability suit against Petro, an applicable statute of repose

In deciding a claim of design defect, a court can consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design for a product.

Under a statute of limitations, an injured party must bring a claim for product liability within a certain prescribed time from the sale of the product.

A product liability claim against the manufacturer of a product that is subject to extensive government regulation may be preempted.

In a product liability suit based on a design defect, a manufacturer is liable only when the harm was not reasonably preventable.

A product made in conformity with a manufacturer's design specifications is not considered defective regardless of a flaw in the design.

Cultivator Inc. designs and makes tractors, balers, and other farm equipment. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Cultivator could be liable for failing to exercise due care with respect to all of the following except

Some courts do not allow assumption of risk as a defense to a strict product liability claim because the theory focuses on the nature of a product, not the plaintiff's conduct.