Chapters 1-6 Flashcards

1
Q

Braswell v Cincinnati Inc - A manufacturer was not held strictly liable in a case where someone had their arm amputated due to a design defect that occurred after the product was sold

A

• Cincinnati Inc properly warned people with proper safety features when it was sold
• The machine was resold several times and the safety features were removed
Cincinnati Inc was not responsible for those safety features being removed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Defect in manufacture

A

when a manufacturer fails to properly assemble a product, test a product, or check the quality of a product adequately

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Coca-Cola v Dolinski

A

A guy sued after a decomposed mouse was found in the liquid the plaintiff drank. Coca-Cola was strictly liable due to them needing to adequately check the products quality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Defect in Design - Occurs when a product is designed incorrectly BUT

A

Does not impact just one product, but all products, and can cause injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Braswell v Cincinnati Inc - A manufacturer was not held strictly liable in a case where someone had their arm amputated due to a design defect that occurred after the product was sold

A
  • Cincinnati Inc properly warned people with proper safety features when it was sold
    • The machine was resold several times and the safety features were removed
      • Cincinnati Inc was not responsible for those safety features being removed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Defect in Packaging

A

When a product has been placed in packaging that is insufficiently tamperproof

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

If tamperproof protection was not placed on a bottle, and someone put cyanide in it–what would that be?

A

Defect in Packaging

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Five most common defenses to product liability

A

Generally known danger, government contractor defense, abnormal misuse of a product, supervening event, assumption of the risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Certain products are inherently dangerous and known to the general population to be so (guns shoot bullets and bullets hurt therefore they don’t need to place a warning on the barrel of a gun)

A

Generally Known Danger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Contractors who were provided specifications by the government is not liable for any defect in the product that occurs as a result of those specifications

A

Government Contractor Defense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

A lawn mower seller is not liable in case someone lifts the lawnmower up to try and cut the hedge?

A

Abnormal Misuse of a product

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Manufacturers are not liable if a product is materially altered or modified after it leaves the sellers possession.

A

Supervening Event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Assumption of the Risk - Can be asserted as a defense to product liability, but requires:

A

○ The plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk
○ Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk
**Think Prescription Drugs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Made when the seller makes a material representation about a products composition, durability, performance, or safety

A

Express Warranty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Can be implied from the facts that the sellers has offered the goods for sale

A

Implied Warranties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

If you buy a blender, it should blend)

A

Warranty of merchantability

17
Q

Any merchant implicitly warrants the product is sold or is fit for its ordinary purposes, and conveys with the sale of product irrespective of the seller’s statements

A

Warranty of merchantability

18
Q

Tort

A

a “wrong” whereby a persons or business is injured by the tortious actions of others

19
Q

Lawful protection of a person against unauthorized touching, restraint, or other contac

A

Intentional Torts

20
Q

Threat of immediate harm or offensive contact, or any action that arouses reasonable apprehension of imminent harm

21
Q

Where an individual’s intent to injure another is transferred to the crime that may occur if someone else gets injured instead

A

Transferred Intent Doctrine

22
Q

Restraining someone without their consent

A

False Imprisonment

23
Q

Merchant protection statutes / shopkeeper’s privilege exempts shop owners from false imprisonment of shoplifters only IF

A

there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, suspects are detained for a reasonable time, and investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner

24
Q

Any attempt by another person to appropriate a living person’s name or identity for commercial purposes

A

Misappropriation

25
Exception to misappropriations include:
events of historical significance, such as the Rosa Parks story
26
Slander vs Libel
Slander is spoken, libel is written (Does not include opinions)
27
The failure to do something that a reasonable person would do
Negligence
28
In order to prove something is negligent there must be:
Duty of Care, Reasonable Standard, Breach of Duty of Care, Proximate Cause
29
the duty people owe each other (not to cause unreasonable risk or harm)
Duty of Care
30
reasonable professional standard
where someone in a similar scenario is imagined whether or not they do the same thing
31
the failure to act as a reasonable person would act
Breach of the duty of care
32
The farther removed someone is from the cause of a negligent tort, the less liable they are
Proximate Cause
33
When a negligent act violates a statute or ordinance
Negligence Per Se
34
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove not negligent in this scenario
Res ipsa loquitu
35
Under Res ipsa loquitu, there is a presumption of negligence due to:
Defendant was in exclusive control of the situation | Plaintiff would not have suffer injury except for someone's negligence
36
Extreme departure from ordinary standard of conduct. Can be willful or reckless behavior
Gross Negligence