Torts II

Question 1

Restatements 520

Answer 1

Involves high degree of risk
Likely to be great
Cannot be eliminated by reasonable care
Common Usage
Inappropriate place
Value to community

Question 2

Duty of obvious risk

Answer 2

No duty if plaintiff knew or should have known

Question 3

Duty of hidden risk

Answer 3

Duty if defendant knew or should have known but plaintiff did not know or should not have known

Question 4

3 Requirements of Adequate Warning

Answer 4

Reasonably expected to catch the attention of the consumer
Be comprehensive and give fair indication of the specific risks
Be of an intensity justified by the magnitude of the risk

Question 5

Woodin v JCP

Answer 5

Products Liability
Not manufactured defectively
Plaintiff bought freezer from defendant. The freezer 8 years later caused a fire from the cord. The court found no defect b/c there was no proof defective when left seller (age of the product and use of an extension cord)

Question 6

Theories under products liability

Answer 6

Design defect
Manufacturing defect
Duty to warn or inadequate

Question 7

Manufacturing Defect

Answer 7

Deviation from a blueprint causing an unreasonable behavior

Question 8

3 Design Defect Tests

Answer 8

Risk/Utility Test
Feasible Alternative Design Test
Consumer Expectation Test

Question 9

Pro Strict Liability Policies

Answer 9

Reduces frequency of dangerous activity
Innovation to make things safer
Party with choice bears burden
Overcoming evidence problems

Question 10

Con Strict Liability Policies

Answer 10

Deterrence of high social utility

Deter innovation

Question 11

Domestic Animal

Answer 11

Take by nature or accustomed to the associations of man with no disposition to escape his dominion

Question 12

Wild Animal

Answer 12

Incapable of being domesticated and require force or skill to keep them in subjection

Question 13

Strict Liability

Answer 13

Liability without fault

Question 14

Ways v Boy Scouts

Answer 14

Not a product
The court found the magazine not a product b/c it portrays ideas and the physical properties of the magazine did not cause the injury by the idea it put in someone’s head

Question 15

Rawlings Sporting v Daniels

Answer 15

Failure to Warn
The court found the plaintiff did not warn and was required to b/c they knew a helmet could not be designed to avoid injury altogether, there are limitations, it was known for a long time, the helmets do not protect against subdural hematoma, laymen think helmet is to protect the head, and injury can happen without manufacturing defect

Question 16

4 Elements to Products Liability

Answer 16

The item is a product
The defendant was manufacturer
The product was defective at time it left manufacturer
The item caused the harm

Question 17

4 Policies for Classifying a Product

Answer 17

American competitiveness
Accident Prevention
Insurance Costs
Regulatory systems

Question 18

Classifying defendant as a seller, manufacturer, etc

Answer 18

Is the business of selling, manufacturing, etc
Are the immune?
The one who made the actual item caused the injury

Question 19

Pavlides v Galveston Yacht

Answer 19

Inadequate Warning
The plaintiff purchased a boat from the defendant. The court determined that there was no adequate warning to the plaintiff of the bilge void and bilge drain b/c the manual was for a different boat, that defendant knew of danger but plaintiff did not and should not have known based on the info at the sale and no warning signs

Question 20

McCabe v American Honda

Answer 20

Defective at leaving defendant
Plaintiff was in an accident where airbag did not deploy. The court found that it was designed defectively b/c it fails the consumer expectation test

Question 21

Vandermark v Ford

Answer 21

Distributor/Manufacturer
The court found Ford liable b/c no matter what later retailers and distributors add to your products, you are still liable

Question 22

Jurls v Ford

Answer 22

Manufacturing Defect
The court found the cruise control to be defectively manufactured b/c they acted differently than they were supposed to and an expert witness testified that the only way the accident could have happened was either by the failure in the dump valve to release

Question 23

Dico Tire v Cisneros

Answer 23

Manufacturing Defect
The court found the tire was defectively manufactured b/c an expert testified that the only way for the accident to have occurred would be if the beads had not been properly sealed which only happens before the rubber is added

Question 24

Healed v Firestone

Answer 24

Not the Specific Manu or Retailer
The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Firestone was the rim in the accident b/c the rim had been destroyed and there was more than one manufacturer who made a similar design

Question 25

Consumer Expectation Test

Answer 25

Not, in isolation, whether the product is beyond the ordinary knowledge of the consumer but whether, in the circumstances of how it failed, the ordinary consumer can form minimum safety expectations

Question 26

Risk/Utility Test

Answer 26

Only have to prove caused injury
Then Burden shifts to defendant to prove the benefits outweigh the risks
May be met if no other design

Question 27

Aetna Casualty v Jeppesen

Answer 27

Is a product
The court found the charts for aviation to be a product b/c the company created their own translation and the charts are specifically used for their depictions and b/c they can cause mass casualties with only one accident