Exam 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

A statute of limitations may restrict the time within which an action in product liability may be brought.​

River Rock Company makes spas and hot tubs. Sterling files a product liability suit against River Rock, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold the defendant liable, the court may take note that a manufacturer or seller has no duty to warn about risks that are​

The extreme risk of an activity is a defense against imposing strict liability.​

Recovery in a product liability case may be limited when it can be shown that the plaintiff misused the product.​

One characteristic of an abnormally dangerous activity is that it involves a low risk of serious harm.​

Roadbuilders, Inc., uses dynamite in its operations. Sky-Hi Fireworx, Inc., stores explosives in its warehouses. Most likely liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any injury caused by an abnormally dangerous activity will be​

Cookin' Products Company makes heat convection ovens. DeAnn discovers that her Cookin' oven is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on strict liability. To win, DeAnn must show that she​

Agro, Inc., sells seed to farmers. Bram buys and plants Agro seed on his farm, but no crop grows because the seed is defective. Bram sues Agro for product liability based on negligence. To win, Bram must show that​

Safe-T Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for electronic devices. Tina files a product liability suit against Safe-T, alleging a warning defect. In deciding whether to hold Safe-T liable, the court may consider​

An action in strict product liability requires that a product be reasonably dangerous to a user or consumer.​

A manufacturer's duty of care extends to the inspection and testing of products bought to incorporate in the final product.​

People who keep domestic animals are strictly liable for any harm inflicted by the animals.​

Under the doctrine of strict liability, if there is no fault, there is no liability.​

Assumption of risk is no defense to a product liability action.​

Marketing puffery has traditionally been recognized in product liability law as a product defect.​

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

Bob is shopping in Carl's Hardware Store when a nail gun in use by Dan, one of Carl's employees, fires without warning and hits Bob in the leg. Carl checks the gun and discovers that it was assembled improperly. Bob files a suit against Eagle Tools, Inc., the manufacturer of the gun, for product liability, on the ground of strict liability. What are the elements for an action based on strict liability? In whose favor is the court likely to rule and why?​

A product liability action based on negligence requires privity of contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant-manufacturer.​

Flo is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Girder Company-made beam. At the time, Flo is not wearing any safety gear. In Flo's product liability suit against Girder, the company can most successfully raise the defense of​

Wideload, Inc., makes, sells, and leases trucks, trailers, and other moving and hauling equipment for consumer use. Verna files a product liability suit against Wideload, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider​