Exam 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

To be liable on a theory of strict product liability, a defendant must be in a better position than the plaintiff to bear the costs associated with the harm caused by a product.

The doctrine of strict liability applies to sellers of goods, including wholesalers.

Generally, a seller is not liable for failing to warn consumers of the harm that can result from a foreseeable misuse of a product.

Do-It-Rite Inc. makes and markets tools. Evan uses a Do-It-Rite power screwdriver to scrape grout-a purpose for which it was not intended-and is injured when the tool slips. Evan files a product liability suit against the maker. The defendant's best defense is most likely

Motor Corporation (MC) makes cars and trucks. National Sales Company sells all MC vehicles. Open Road Inc. leases only the cars. Under product liability laws, liability for injuries or damage caused by an MC vehicle may be imposed on

Strict liability is imposed only for an act that departs from a reasonable standard of care to cause an injury.

A defective product is an unreasonably dangerous product when it is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer.

For cause in fact to become a relevant issue in a product liability suit, a plaintiff must first establish proximate cause.

The types of product defects that have traditionally been recognized in product liability law include careless marketing.

Chem Company and Dura Plastics Inc. make and distribute a certain toxic chemical that is discovered in the water supply of the county in which their plants are located. In a product liability suit against both makers, market-share liability may be imposed on

Epsilon Corporation makes scientific instruments that are subject to extensive government regulation and undergo a rigorous premarket approval process. In a design defect product liability suit against Epsilon by a party allegedly injured by one of the devices, the company can most successfully raise the defense of

A product made in conformity with a manufacturer's design specifications is not considered defective regardless of a flaw in the design.

Those who do not make goods, but only sell or lease them, cannot be held liable for harm caused by those goods to a consumer.

Grill Time Inc. makes commercial cooking appliances, including a grill in use by Haute Cuisine Food Cart. Inez, a Haute employee, is injured when the grill malfunctions. If the injury occurred as a result of a misrepresentation about the product, Grill Time is most likely liable for

A product liability claim against the manufacturer of a product that is subject to extensive government regulation may be preempted.

EquiMeds Company and GenDrugs Inc. make and distribute prescription drugs. In a product-liability suit against both parties, the court is most likely to impose market-share liability if it cannot be proved which of the parties

In a product liability suit based on negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was the "cause in fact" of an injury.

In a product liability case based on negligence, a defendant may be liable even if the plaintiff has not met the requirements for an action in negligence.

In deciding a claim of design defect, a court can consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design for a product.

A defendant may be able to limit liability for injuries caused by a defective product by showing that a plaintiff's negligence contributed to the injuries.