Law: SB #7 Flashcards
- In Embs v. Pepsi-Cola Bot. Co., of Lexington, Ms. Embs did not purchase a bottle of Seven-Up. Therefore, Ms. Embs is viewed as a “third party.” Which of the following is most liberal in allowing a broad range of third parties to recover for injuries caused by the use of defective products?
strict liability sales warranties (§2-318, alternative A)
a
Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts by its terms extends a right of recovery to users and consumers, and the opinion in this case extends liability beyond that to bystanders who are neither users nor consumers. Section 2-318, Alternative A, limits recovery to members of the purchaser’s family or household or a guest.
This question focuses on the opinion in Jordan v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Utah. Which of the following res ipsa loquitor requirements was not established to the satisfaction of the appellate court?
The events causing the injury must be of a type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence. The instrumentalities involved must have been within the exclusive control of the defendant.
b
The appellate court was concerned that the bottle of Coca Cola may have been tampered with.
This question focuses on the opinion in Embs v. Pepsi-Cola Bot. Co., of Lexington in the text. (Recall that Ms. Embs was injured when a bottle of 7Up exploded. Ms. Embs had not purchased a bottle of 7Up.) Which of the following is the most correct?
Ms. Embs cannot use negligence as a theory of recovery because she was not a purchaser of the product that injured her. Ms. Embs cannot use strict liability as a theory of recovery because she was not a purchaser of the product that injured her. Both of these are correct. None of these is correct.
d
- In Lesson 6, you learned that the negligence of various parties is compared (comparative negligence) to come up with a result. The same thing is done with respect to strict liability. Which of the following may be compared against strict liability?negligence
abuse of the product
assumption of the risk
all options are correct
d
The degree of fault involved in negligence, abuse of the product, and assumption of the risk are all compared against the degree of fault involved in strict liability.
This question focuses on the opinion in Travelers Ins. v. Federal Pacific Elec. Changing the facts in that case, suppose that the employees who cleaned up after the flooding and who activated the circuit breakers were custodians with no special training in electricity. Which of the following is the most correct?
Under these facts, the lack of a warning label would make the circuit breakers unreasonably dangerous. Under these facts, the lack of a warning label would not make the circuit breakers unreasonably dangerous.
a
If the users are not knowledgeable users, a warning label becomes necessary to make a dangerous product not unreasonably dangerous.
- Brittany buys a ham from Meat Mart. She commences to eat it and sees something worm-like in it. It is the aorta or trachea of a hog. She files suit claiming that the warranty of merchantability has been violated. Which of the following is correct?The so-called reasonable expectations test would be used by most courts to determine whether the warranty of merchantability has been violated.
The so-called foreign/natural test would be used by most courts to determine whether the warranty of merchantability has been violated
Neither is correct because the warranty of merchantability does not apply to this case.
a
Which of the following is typically the most difficult to prove when using negligence to recover for injuries caused by a defective product?
damages duty violation of duty
c
Typically, the most difficult thing to do is to factually trace the product through the manufacturing and distribution process and identify the circumstances that caused the defect. This is the process of establishing violation of duty.
On balance, which of the following theories will probably be most effective in permitting a person injured in the use of a defective product to recover for injuries?
sales warranties negligence combined with res ipsa loquitor strict liability negligence
c
Strict liability offers the best opportunities for success in a product liability case because proving negligence is not required and because a broad range of third parties is allowed to recover.
- Dominic buys a fifth of John Daniels Scotch Whiskey. He consumes a good part of the whiskey and falls and is injured. Dominic sues the John Daniels company using a theory of strict liability. Which of the following is correct?The product is unreasonably dangerous and, therefore, strict liability applies.
The product is not unreasonably dangerous and, therefore, strict liability does not apply.
b
Whiskey is not unreasonably dangerous because it cannot be made safe for all varieties of consumption, and the consumer generally understands the risks involved.
- The sales article is constructed so that each state may adopt a version of §2-318, (third party liability) which suits its own philosophy. Identify the alternative that allows the largest scope of recovery by third persons.
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
c
