Question 1

What did the Hawaiian court determine about mortgages as a product under product liability law in the Case Nugget Radford v. Wells Fargo Bank?

Accepted Answer

A)   That the case was properly dismissed because the defendant did not have a duty of care to protect the plaintiff from a bad mortgage loan.
B)   That a mortgage is in fact "a product" under product liability law.
C)   That mortgages are not a "product" that can be subject to a product liability suit.
D)   That mortgages are a question of fact and a jury trial is warranted to determine if the mortgage should be considered a product.
E)   That federal law placed mortgages in a special category for product liability cases.F) A) and D)
G) All of the above

Question 2

[Squirt Gun Mishap] Marie decided to purchase a large squirt gun for her son, Alex, to use while playing in the pool. The squirt gun was of a very elaborate variety and had a number of different attachments for different sprays of water. The squirt gun came with instructions for assembly and use, and provided warnings against various types of misuse. The pamphlet that came with the squirt gun advised that the squirt gun should be used only under adult supervision, that it must not be used by children under 11 years old, and that nothing should be put into the squirt gun except water. Alex had a party for his tenth birthday at the pool. A number of children came. A guest, Sophie, age 10, decided to load pebbles along with water into the gun. She began shooting the gun and hit Rachel, another guest, in the eye, requiring treatment at an emergency room. Rachel required some minor surgery, but sustained no permanent injury. Rachel's parents stated that they looked at the squirt gun when they initially arrived at the party, but did not notice any warnings affixed directly to the product. Rachel's parents want to sue someone for something, but they do not particularly want to sue Marie, their friend and hostess of the party.
-Which statement is true regarding a lawsuit brought by Rachel's parents against the manufacturer of the squirt gun for negligence?

Accepted Answer

A)   Because neither Rachel nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller, no one other than Marie may be sued for negligence.
B)   Privity of contract is not necessary in order to sue for negligence, so the fact that neither Rachel nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller would not prevent a negligence-based action.
C)   Although privity of contract is not an issue, Rachel's parents would be unable to prevail in a negligence action because Rachel did not sustain permanent physical injury.
D)   Although privity of contract is not an issue, Rachel's parents would be unable to prevail in an action against the manufacturer for negligence because they did not read the instruction booklet.
E)   Rachel's parents would be prohibited from suing the manufacturer because of the federal law prohibiting lawsuits for failure to warn in cases involving children.F) B) and E)
G) None of the above

Question 3

Which statement is true regarding the application of negligence per se in product liability cases based on negligence?

Accepted Answer

A)   The doctrine of negligence per se is also applicable to product liability cases based on negligence.
B)   The doctrine of negligence per se is applicable to product liability cases only if the cases are based on failure to warn.
C)   The doctrine of negligence per se is applicable to product liability cases only if the cases are based on design defect.
D)   The doctrine of negligence per se is applicable to product liability cases only if the cases are based on manufacturing defect.
E)   The doctrine of negligence per se is never available in product liability cases.F) B) and E)
G) B) and D)

Question 4

When is expert testimony admissible in product liability suits?

Accepted Answer

A)   Expert testimony is never allowed in product liability cases.
B)   Expert testimony can be used if the judge believes the case can only be understood if an expert testifies and the case must deal with scientific subject matter.
C)   Expert testimony is allowed but only in product design product liability cases.
D)   Expert testimony is allowed if the subject matter is scientific or technical or other specialized knowledge would help the finder of fact and the expert offering the testimony is qualified as an expert.
E)   Expert testimony is allowed only if the expert offering the testimony is qualified as an expert and has advanced degrees in the areas he or she is testifying in.F) A) and D)
G) B) and E)

Question 5

Anthony is a trained exterminator who received yearly instruction regarding precautions that should be taken in relation to the use of pesticides. After being told that he suffered allergies and other ailments based on exposure to the pesticides, Anthony sued the manufacturers of the pesticides at issue based on a failure to warn theory. The defendants' best argument based on Anthony's prior training is the ________ defense.

Accepted Answer

A)   Trained technician
B)   Sophisticated-user
C)   Knowledgeable user
D)   Unharmed user
E)   Workers' compensationF) A) and C)
G) All of the above

Question 6

What four factors did the U.S. Supreme Court identify in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical for courts to consider in addressing the relevance and reliability of expert opinions?

Accepted Answer

The court identified the following facto...

Question 7

The state-of-the-art defense is not available in all states in strict liability cases.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 8

[Disappointing Boat Purchase] Ava went to purchase a new boat. She wanted a boat she could use in a nearby lake and also take to the coast for use in ocean waters. Ava saw a boat she liked in the showroom. She showed the boat to Brock, the sales representative at the dealership, and stated that she wanted a boat for both lake usage and ocean usage. Brock told her that the dealership had the best boats in the state, that the engine was great in the boat she liked, and that she would have no problem with steering or with the carburetor. He said nothing about whether or not the boat was an appropriate vessel for ocean waters. Ava purchased the boat. She immediately began to have significant problems with it. The engine did not perform adequately, and there were problems with the steering and carburetor. Additionally, Ava attempted to take the boat onto ocean waters and had significant difficulty. She later discovered that it was not an ocean-going vessel. It was only appropriate for lake usage.
-Which of the following is not a factor that a trial court may find helpful when balancing a product's utility against the risk the product creates, as set forth in the text from the Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage case?

Accepted Answer

A)   The product's safety aspects.
B)   The manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility.
C)   The product's design, look and feel.
D)   The availability of a substitute product that would meet the same need and not be as unsafe.
E)   The usefulness and desirability of the product.F) A) and B)
G) None of the above

Question 9

If Alessia is awarded one million dollars in her lawsuit, how would the judge apportion liability under the market share theory?

Accepted Answer

A)   ColorCo, PaintCo, and BrightCo would each be liable for 1/3 of the judgment.
B)   ColorCo, PaintCo, and BrightCo would be liable for their share of the market at the time of the judgment.
C)   ColorCo, PaintCo, and BrightCo would be liable for their share of the market at the time the product was produced.
D)   ColorCo, PaintCo, and BrightCo would be liable for their share of the market at the time the paint was purchased.
E)   ColorCo, PaintCo, and BrightCo would be liable for their share of the market at the time of Alessia's injury.F) C) and D)
G) A) and B)

Question 10

Which statement is true regarding punitive damages in product liability cases?

Accepted Answer

A)   Punitive damages are not available in product liability actions.
B)   The amount of the punitive-damage award is determined by the wealth of the defendant only.
C)   The amount of the punitive-damage award is determined by the maliciousness of the action only.
D)   The amount of the punitive-damage award is determined by the wealth of the defendant and the maliciousness of the action.
E)   Punitive damages are meant to compensate the plaintiff for injury and to make the plaintiff whole.F) B) and D)
G) B) and E)

Question 11

Which of the following elements must a plaintiff generally show in order to recover in a product liability lawsuit?

Accepted Answer

A)   Only that the product is defective.
B)   That the defect should have been discovered and fixed prior to sale.
C)   That the defendant was negligent.
D)   That the product is defective and also that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control.
E)   That the product is defective, that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control, and also that the defendant was negligent.F) A) and E)
G) A) and D)

Question 12

What was the ruling of the court in the case of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., the case in which the plaintiff injured his hand when a jar containing peanuts broke?

Accepted Answer

A)   That the case would be dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish that the jar was maintained in a pristine condition after its purchase.
B)   That the plaintiff was unable to recover on his claim because negligence in manufacture of the jar could not be established.
C)   That the plaintiff was unable to recover on his claim because he was not the actual purchaser of the jar of peanuts.
D)   That the plaintiff would be allowed to proceed on his claim because negligence was established.
E)   That the plaintiff would be allowed to proceed on his claim because the defendant was unable to establish that the jar had been damaged after its purchase.F) B) and D)
G) None of the above

Question 13

What was the result in Radford v. Wells Fargo Bank, the case from the text in which the plaintiff claimed that a mortgage loan was a defective product?

Accepted Answer

A)   The court allowed the case to proceed on the basis that a loan is a product.
B)   The court ruled that while a loan is a product, the plaintiff was barred from proceeding because he had not alleged that he was in mortgage foreclosure, a necessary predicate for a lawsuit alleging defect based on a mortgage loan.
C)   The court ruled that while a loan is a product, the plaintiff was barred from proceeding because he had not alleged usury, a necessary predicate for a lawsuit alleging defect based on a mortgage loan.
D)   The court ruled that while a loan is a product, the plaintiff was barred from proceeding because he had not alleged that he was in bankruptcy, a necessary predicate for a lawsuit alleging defect based on a mortgage loan.
E)   The court ruled that a loan is not a product for purposes of product liability law, recognizing that product liability focuses on tangible items.F) A) and B)
G) B) and E)

Question 14

A common defense known as ________ arises when a consumer knows that a defect exists but still proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product, creating a situation where the consumer has voluntarily assumed the risk of injury from the defect and thus cannot recover.

Accepted Answer

A)   consumer risk-taker
B)   comparative fault.
C)   contributory negligence.
D)   known danger defense
E)   assumption of the riskF) A) and E)
G) A) and B)

Question 15

Following the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company, any ________ plaintiff can sue a manufacturer for its breach of duty of care.

Accepted Answer

A)   contracting
B)   adult
C)   unforeseeable
D)   foreseeable
E)   believableF) B) and C)
G) B) and D)

Question 16

In most states, what defenses are available in negligence-based product liability actions?

Accepted Answer

The same types of defenses in negligence...

Question 17

A producer of razor blades need not warn consumers that a razor blade may cut someone.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 18

[Lead paint] Alessia grew up in an old house. When Alessia was 25 years old, she was diagnosed with permanent kidney and nervous system damage, which doctors determined was linked to the lead paint she chipped off her windows and digested when she was a younger child. In order to offset some of the continuing medical costs, Alessia wants to sue the lead paint manufacturer, however, she doesn't know what brand of paint was used in her home. The most popular brand of lead paint in her area at the time the interior of her house was painted was made by ColorCo, but PaintCo and BrightCo were significant producers also with PaintCo having sales just behind ColorCo.
-BrightCo wants to ask the court to dismiss it from the lawsuit. Which argument, if true, would cause the court to deny the motion to dismiss BrightCo?

Accepted Answer

A)   BrightCo's product was not identical to the product that harmed Alessia.
B)   BrightCo has never sold the product in Alessia's area.
C)   BrightCo sold the product in Alessia's area, but not until last year.
D)   Alessia cannot prove that BrightCo's product was the product that caused Alessia harm.
E)   There is no evidence that BrightCo's products ever contained lead.F) A) and C)
G) D) and E)

Question 19

Which of the following was true prior to the landmark 1916 case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company?

Accepted Answer

A)   Negligence was rarely used as a theory of recovery for an injury caused by a defective product because of the difficulty of establishing the element of duty.
B)   Negligence was rarely used as a theory of recovery for an injury caused by a defective product because of the difficulty of establishing causation.
C)   Negligence was often used as a theory of recovery because of the ease in establishing privity of contract.
D)   Causes of actions against manufacturers of products were barred under federal law.
E)   Causes of actions against manufacturers of products were barred by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that has since been repealed.F) D) and E)
G) C) and D)

Question 20

[Scissors Injury] Yvonne bought a new pair of large-sized, extra-sharp scissors made by CutCo at her local store, BuyStuff. At the time of purchase, Yvonne noticed that the packaging was torn. The clerk offered her a discount because of the damage. When Yvonne tried to open the package containing the scissors at home, she found the hard plastic packaging was difficult to open. Her roommate, Gwen, handed her a knife to cut the packaging. While Yvonne was cutting, the hard plastic sliced her finger, causing her to drop the package. When the package fell, the scissors fell out of the package onto Yvonne's toe. Gwen then picked up the scissors and ran to call an ambulance. Unfortunately, she tripped and fell while running with the scissor blades facing up, and was stabbed in the stomach. Yvonne and Gwen each suffered injuries and sued CutCo and BuyStuff, alleging strict product liability.
-Gwen believes her lawsuit will be successful because there was no warning label on the scissors. Is she correct?

Accepted Answer

A)   Yes, under the bystander theory.
B)   Yes, because the scissors did not warn of the hazards of running with scissors.
C)   Yes, because the warning should have at least contained a picture warning.
D)   No, because no duty to warn exists for dangers arising either from unforeseeable misuses of a product or from obvious dangers.
E)   Yes, because CutCo should have known that without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use.F) A) and C)
G) A) and E)

Exam 10: Product Liability

When is expert testimony admissible in product liability suits?

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

A common defense known as ________ arises when a consumer knows that a defect exists but still proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product, creating a situation where the consumer has voluntarily assumed the risk of injury from the defect and thus cannot recover.

Correct Answer
verified

A producer of razor blades need not warn consumers that a razor blade may cut someone.

Correct Answer
verified

Which statement is true regarding punitive damages in product liability cases?

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

What was the result in Radford v. Wells Fargo Bank, the case from the text in which the plaintiff claimed that a mortgage loan was a defective product?

Correct Answer
verified

The state-of-the-art defense is not available in all states in strict liability cases.

Correct Answer
verified

Which statement is true regarding the application of negligence per se in product liability cases based on negligence?

Correct Answer
verified

Which of the following was true prior to the landmark 1916 case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company?

Correct Answer
verified

What four factors did the U.S. Supreme Court identify in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical for courts to consider in addressing the relevance and reliability of expert opinions?

Correct Answer
verified
The court identified the following facto...
View Answer

What did the Hawaiian court determine about mortgages as a product under product liability law in the Case Nugget Radford v. Wells Fargo Bank?

Correct Answer
verified

In most states, what defenses are available in negligence-based product liability actions?

Correct Answer
verified
The same types of defenses in negligence...
View Answer

Correct Answer
verified

Which of the following elements must a plaintiff generally show in order to recover in a product liability lawsuit?

Correct Answer
verified

If Alessia is awarded one million dollars in her lawsuit, how would the judge apportion liability under the market share theory?

Correct Answer
verified

What was the ruling of the court in the case of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., the case in which the plaintiff injured his hand when a jar containing peanuts broke?

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Following the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company, any ________ plaintiff can sue a manufacturer for its breach of duty of care.

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Exam 10: Product Liability

When is expert testimony admissible in product liability suits?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

A common defense known as ________ arises when a consumer knows that a defect exists but still proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product, creating a situation where the consumer has voluntarily assumed the risk of injury from the defect and thus cannot recover.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

A producer of razor blades need not warn consumers that a razor blade may cut someone.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Which statement is true regarding punitive damages in product liability cases?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

What was the result in Radford v. Wells Fargo Bank, the case from the text in which the plaintiff claimed that a mortgage loan was a defective product?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

The state-of-the-art defense is not available in all states in strict liability cases.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Which statement is true regarding the application of negligence per se in product liability cases based on negligence?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Which of the following was true prior to the landmark 1916 case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

What four factors did the U.S. Supreme Court identify in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical for courts to consider in addressing the relevance and reliability of expert opinions?

Correct AnswerverifiedThe court identified the following facto...View AnswerShow Answer

What did the Hawaiian court determine about mortgages as a product under product liability law in the Case Nugget Radford v. Wells Fargo Bank?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

In most states, what defenses are available in negligence-based product liability actions?

Correct AnswerverifiedThe same types of defenses in negligence...View AnswerShow Answer

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Which of the following elements must a plaintiff generally show in order to recover in a product liability lawsuit?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

If Alessia is awarded one million dollars in her lawsuit, how would the judge apportion liability under the market share theory?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

What was the ruling of the court in the case of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., the case in which the plaintiff injured his hand when a jar containing peanuts broke?

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Following the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company, any ________ plaintiff can sue a manufacturer for its breach of duty of care.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified
The court identified the following facto...
View Answer

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified
The same types of defenses in negligence...
View Answer

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified