FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 41

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

A seller who introduces into commerce an unreasonably dangerous product may be subject to a tort action for strict liability.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 42

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

EZ Co-op Inc. sells Fill-Up cattle feed to ranchers. Gina buys and feeds Fill-Up to her herd. The feed is poisoned. Gina sues EZ for product liability based on negligence. To win, Gina must show

A) why the feed was poisoned.
B) how the feed became poisoned.
C) that the feed caused her damage.
D) all of the choices.

E) None of the above
F) All of the above

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 43

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

Holding defendants strictly liable for manufacturing defects encourages greater investment in product safety.

Airsoft, Inc. makes toys. Airsoft intentionally mislabels its packaged products to conceal a defect. Trusting and relying on the mislabeling, Bing buys an Airsoft product and suffers an injury. Airsoft is most likely liable for

Under the doctrine of strict liability, persons are liable only for the results of their intentional acts or their failure to exercise due care.

The elements of an action in strict product liability include that a plaintiff must have incurred harm by the use or consumption of a product.

A manufacturer or seller has a duty to warn about a risk that is obvious or commonly known.

Rev Motor Company buys plugs and points from Sparkplugs Inc. and puts them in Rev vehicles without changing their composition. If the parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects may be

Only big businesses face potential liability for the products they sell.

The manufacturer of a product may incur liability when a defect causes injury to a user but not when the defect causes property damage to a bystander.

Baby Things Inc. makes and sells a crib to Cara. Baby Things fails to exercise "due care" to make the crib safe, and Cara's child Dua is injured as a result. Baby Things is most likely liable for

DIY-Haul, Inc., makes, sells, and leases hauling equipment for consumer use. Ed files a product liability suit against DIY-Haul, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider