Product Liability Flashcards
PFC in a products liability action based on strict liability, the plaintiff need show only
- the defendant is a commercial supplier,
- the defendant produced or sold a product that was defective when it left the defendant’s control,
- the defective product was an actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and
- the plaintiff suffered damages to person or property.
A manufacturer is liable for a defective product even if the consumer (P) misuses it as long as the misuse
was foreseeable
Who decides whether the consumer’s misuse was foreseeable?
the jury
In contrast to products liability cases based on negligence, those based on strict liability do NOT:
A Impose liability when an intermediary negligently failed to discover the defect.
B Prohibit recovery of solely economic losses.
C Require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect.
D Require an injured bystander to be foreseeable.
C Require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect.
Which of the following may prevent establishing causation against a manufacturer in a strict products liability action?
A The retailer’s labeling of the product as its own
B The destruction of the product because of its dangerous defect
C The failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defect
D The negligent failure of a retailer to discover a dangerous defect
C The failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defect
When the intermediary’s conduct becomes something more than ordinary foreseeable negligence, it becomes a superseding cause. Hence, the conduct of a retailer who discovered a dangerous defect and then took no action *(such as alerting the manufacturer, warning the consumer, or removing the product from sale) *constitutes more than ordinary foreseeable negligence and may cut off the manufacturer’s liability.
Which of the following statements of law does NOT relate to proving actual cause in a strict products liability case?
A The defendant cannot avoid liability by showing negligent failure of an intermediary to discover the defect.
B If the defect is difficult to trace, the plaintiff may rely on an inference that such a product failure ordinarily would occur only as a result of a defect.
C If the defect has inadequate warnings, the plaintiff is entitled to a presumption that an adequate warning would have been read and heeded.
D The defect in the product must have existed when the product left the defendant’s control.
A The defendant cannot avoid liability by showing negligent failure of an intermediary to discover the defect.
Which of the following is relevant for the defendant in defending a strict products liability claim?
A It was impossible for the defendant retailer to inspect the product because it was in a sealed container.
B The defendant retailer made a reasonable inspection of the product before selling it but did not discover the defect.
C The retailer of the defendant manufacturer’s product discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer.
D The retailer of the defendant manufacturer’s product could have discovered the defect during a reasonable inspection but failed to make an inspection.
C The retailer of the defendant manufacturer’s product discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer.
A motorist driving his new sports car was stopped at a red light when he was struck from behind by a truck. The truck was driven by a driver who had negligently failed to stop. On impact, the door on the driver’s side of the car flew open because of a latent defect in the latch that could not have been detected by the car manufacturer during the ordinary assembly process. The motorist, who was not wearing a seat belt, fell out of the open door and was injured. The jurisdiction retains traditional contributory negligence rules; however, evidence of nonuse of a seat belt is not admissible in a civil action to show contributory negligence.
If the motorist asserts a claim against the car manufacturer, will the motorist prevail?
A Yes, because the motorist could not reasonably have discovered the defect.
B Yes, because the car he was driving was dangerously defective.
C No, because the truck driver’s negligent driving was the cause of the motorist’s injuries.
D No, because the car manufacturer did not know or have reason to know of the defect.
B Yes, because the car he was driving was dangerously defective.
A man purchased a new power boat with an inboard engine from a boating supply store. The boating supply store properly inspected the boat before delivery, but did not detect a virtually invisible manufacturing defect in the boat’s steering mechanism. Later that summer, the man was entertaining some friends on his boat on a lake near a dam. There were some warning pylons near the dam, warning boaters to stay clear. The man decided to show off for his friends by weaving his boat in and out of the warning pylons. As he rounded the last of them, the steering mechanism of his boat jammed, and the boat crashed into the dam. The man was severely injured. The man brings an action for damages against the boating supply store on a theory of strict liability in tort in a jurisdiction that does not apply its comparative fault rules to strict liability actions.
Who will prevail?
A The boating supply store, because it properly inspected the boat before selling it to the man.
B The boating supply store, because the man was negligent in weaving in and out of the pylons.
C The man, because the steering failed due to a defect present when the boat left the manufacturer.
D The man, because the steering mechanism failed while he was operating the boat.
C The man, because the steering failed due to a defect present when the boat left the manufacturer.
A consumer purchased a grass trimmer from a hardware store. He took it out of the sealed box and assembled it according to the instructions. He noticed that there were bolts and screws left over and some joints that could have accepted additional fasteners, but he just disposed of the extra hardware. As he was using the trimmer, the housing came apart and a hard piece of plastic flew off. His neighbor, who was standing nearby, was struck in the eye by the piece of plastic and suffered permanent injuries.
The neighbor sued the hardware store and the manufacturer of the trimmer in a strict liability action. Through discovery, it was determined that the instructions omitted a critical step in the assembly process that would have used the extra hardware, which is why the housing came apart, and that the manufacturer had received some complaints about the instructions previously.
The hardware store had no knowledge of any complaints regarding any of the manufacturer’s products. As to the hardware store, the neighbor will:
A Recover, because the manufacturer had reason to know that the design was defective because of faulty instructions.
B Recover, because the consumer’s failure to recognize the improper assembly does not cut off the store’s liability.
C Not recover, because the neighbor is not a consumer and can only recover against the manufacturer of the product.
D Not recover, because the hardware store had no opportunity to inspect the product and no reason to anticipate that the instructions were faulty.
B Recover, because the consumer’s failure to recognize the improper assembly does not cut off the store’s liability.
A homeowner purchased a ladder from a home supply retailer. While he was using the ladder, an improperly installed bolt fastening one of the rungs gave way, causing him to fall and break his leg. The homeowner sued the manufacturer of the ladder to recover damages for his injury.
If it is established at trial that the home supply retailer could have discovered the defectively installed bolt if it had conducted a reasonable inspection of the ladder, what is the effect of the retailer’s failure to inspect?
A It has no legal effect on the manufacturer’s liability.It has no legal effect on the manufacturer’s liability.
B It is a superseding cause that relieves the manufacturer of liability to the homeowner.
C It is attributable to the manufacturer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
D It will allow the manufacturer to bring an action for indemnity against the home supply retailer if the manufacturer is found liable to the homeowner.
A It has no legal effect on the manufacturer’s liability.It has no legal effect on the manufacturer’s liability.
