FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 10: Product Liability

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 21

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

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?

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 would be allowed to proceed on his claim because negligence was established.
C) 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.
D) That the plaintiff was unable to recover on his claim because he was not the actual purchaser of the jar of peanuts.
E) That the plaintiff was unable to recover on his claim because negligence in manufacture of the jar could not be established.

F) B) and E)
G) A) and B)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 22

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Under a strict product liability theory,who may be held liable to an injured party?

A) Distributors only.
B) Manufacturers,distributors,and retailers.
C) Manufacturers and distributors but not retailers.
D) Manufacturers only.
E) Retailers only.

F) A) and B)
G) C) and E)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 23

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

What was the result in the text's case involving a plaintiff who suffered permanent liver damages as a result of drinking a glass of wine with a Tylenol capsule?

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

Negligence per se is the same thing as negligence.

If the product packaging had contained a warning regarding dizziness in individuals with high blood pressure and Julia proceeded to take the drug despite its warning,what would be the company's best defense?

What was the Supreme Court of California's ruling in Kesner v.Pseuno Abex LLC,the case in the text in which the plaintiff sued his uncle's employer for harm from contact with asbestos carried from the worksite on his uncle's clothing?

In a state that allows the contributory negligence defense,the plaintiff can recover for only that portion of the harm attributable to the defendant's negligence.

Under a strict product liability theory,who is considered a reasonably foreseeable party who may recover if injury is sustained?

With regard to Julia's blog,what defense could the company claim?

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

When a plaintiff cannot trace an injury caused by a defective product to any particular manufacturer,which theory may allow the plaintiff to still obtain a recovery?

Which of the following causes of action stem from contract theory?

[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 true concerning Brock's statement that the boats at the dealership were the best in the state?

[Allergy Injuries] Drug company ABC Drugs introduced a new over-the-counter allergy pill guaranteed to prevent sneezing and sniffling for twenty-four hours after the consumption of one pill.The packaging contained warnings of the drug's side effects,including nausea and headache.After it was initially put on the market,the company became aware of a risk of dizziness from the drug in people with high blood pressure.However,the company did not warn of the additional risk because the company was concerned that individuals might not buy the pill.The risk of dizziness for the average person was extremely low.Julia had suffered allergies for years and had tried nearly every new product on the market.She even maintained a blog called "Ask the Expert About Allergies." She thought that ABC's pill was a great idea and purchased it at her local convenient store.She purchased the product after the date the company became aware of the issues involving dizziness.She took one pill and felt fine for a few days.Then,however,she began feeling dizzy.Her dizziness caused her to fall and break her leg on a flight of steps.She later discovered that the allergy pill likely made her dizzy.Julia sued under state law alleging failure to warn of the dangerous side effect of the drug.The drug company claimed that it had no duty to list dizziness as a risk because it was anover-the-counter drug and the risk of dizziness to the average person was extremely rare. -Is the company correct that it had no duty to warn of the risk of dizziness?

Which of the following is true about product liability insurance?

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

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

The lack of a feasible way to make a safer product prevents liability based upon an alleged defective product as a matter of law.

Dylan's family bought Dylan,who weighs 275 pounds,an exercise bicycle from a popular sports retailer in his community.The first time that Dylan hopped on the bike,it collapsed,throwing him to the floor and severely bruising his ankle.Dylan wants to sue for his injuries.He asked an expert in exercise equipment to examine the bicycle.The expert told him that the bike was properly manufactured.It was not,however,designed for individuals weighing over 250 pounds.There was a warning to that effect in the brochure that came with the bicycle,but Dylan's family discarded the brochure along with the packaging,and Dylan never saw the warning.Is there any negligence theory under which Dylan can recover? If so,what is it,and what must Dylan demonstrate to succeed on his claim?