Page 37

Question 1

Can an obvious danger be considered a dangerous defect?

Answer 1

No because it would not be unexpected to a reasonable consumer

Question 2

Why are things like handguns not considered to be defective?

Answer 2

Because they function as they are intended and are dangerous in their ordinary use

Question 3

Can a manufacturer be held liable for not designing his product to minimize foreseeable harm caused by other parties or conditions?

Answer 3

Yes, like if they design a car with a fuel tank that catches fire in rear-end collisions

Question 4

Under the consumer expectations test for strict product liability, what is the consensus about foreign versus natural defects?

Answer 4

Things that are natural to the products are not thought of as defects because they can be reasonably expected by their nature

Question 5

If you find a cherry pit in a cherry pie, would that be considered a defect under the consumer expectation test for a design defect?

Answer 5

No, because it was natural to the product and could reasonably be expected by its nature

Question 6

If you find a piece of metal in your food, could that be a design defect?

Answer 6

Yes, because that item is foreign to the product and wouldn’t reasonably be expected to be there by its nature

Question 7

Why is there a statute of limitations on design defects?

Answer 7

Because the product is presumed to be non-defective if the accident happens more than a certain number of years after the initial sale or manufacture

Question 8

Can you bring a claim against a manufacturer or someone in the chain of distribution for guns or ammo when the harm comes from misuse of the product?

Answer 8

No, as long as the product functions as it was intended or designed

Question 9

What are things that are included in tangible personal property for SPL?

Answer 9

Tangible property, real property, electricity

Question 10

Things that are not included as tangible personal property for SPL?

Answer 10

• human blood and tissue
• live animals
• texts
• diagnostic radiation

Question 11

If a product wears out from normal use, is the manufacturer responsible under design defect?

Answer 11

No, normal wear and tear does not make you liable

Question 12

What is involved in the “risk utility test” under design defect for SPL?

Answer 12

The product is defective when the risks outweigh the utility

Question 13

What is the major question to ask for risk utility test for SPL?

Answer 13

Whether the defendant could’ve removed the danger without serious adverse impact on the product’s utility and price

Question 14

If a product is state of the art at the time of its manufacture, what does that mean?

Answer 14

It has no safer alternative

Question 15

What are some examples of products that are exempt from being defective because of their social utility?

Answer 15

Medical devices

Question 16

Products like shredder bullets work the way they’re supposed to, but will courts find that they have a product defect?

Answer 16

No

Question 17

What are factors that should be considered for the risk utility test for design defect for SPL?

Answer 17

• utility
• dangerousness
• type and purpose
• marketability
• cost of design
• user’s ability to avoid injury
• number/severity of injuries
• cost to alleviate problem
• user’s anticipated awareness of dangers
• feasibility of spreading the loss
• feasibility of alternative design

Question 18

What is the “consumer expectations test” under design defect for SPL?

Answer 18

If a reasonably foreseeable purchaser wouldn’t have expected the product to present the danger that resulted in his injury, the product is dangerously defective