Exam 10: Product Liability

A certain toy designed and manufactured by a toy manufacturer is found to have a design that is defective and dangerous. These toys have which of the following types of defect?

How can a plaintiff prove that a defect exists in a product?

Which of the following is true regarding proof of design defect?

What is the term used by courts for testimony by researchers that includes biased data, spurious inferences, data dredging, and sometimes fraud?

Which theory might allow a plaintiff to recover when a plaintiff cannot trace an injury caused by a defective product to any particular manufacturer?

Under strict product liability theory, which of the following would the courts consider a reasonably foreseeable party who may recover if an injury is sustained?

[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. -Without taking into account any statements made by either the salesperson or Ava regarding uses for the boat, what type of warranty did the seller make by merely selling the boat?

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

As recognized by the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, which of the following is true under the risk-utility analysis of product liability?

When the user of a cosmetic or over-the-counter drug has an adverse reaction to that product, ordinary consumers (i.e., not sophisticated users) have sometimes brought a negligent failure-to-warn action. Describe at least one approach or test used by courts in determining whether a plaintiff can prove negligence in these types of cases.

Who could be considered foreseeable plaintiffs in product liability cases?

Which of the following codes highlights a breach of warranty theory of liability?

No duty to warn exists for dangers arising from either unforeseeable misuses of the product or from obvious dangers.

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

A statute violation that causes the harm that the statute was enacted to prevent constitutes ________.

Consumers do not have a right to recover damages for pain and suffering or for emotional distress in German product liability cases.

An implied warranty is a warranty that is clearly stated by the seller or manufacturer.

A plaintiff or plaintiffs may be able to recover what type(s) of damages in negligence-based product liability cases?

[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 convenience 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 an over-the-counter drug and the risk of dizziness to the average person was extremely rare. -With regard to Julia's blog, what defense could the company claim?

[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. -Under the market share theory, which of the following is not true?