Exam 7: Strict Liability and Strict Liability

SurgeStop Company makes electrical cords and other connectors for elec?tronic devices. Rollo files a product liability suit against SurgeStop, alleg?ing a warning defect. In deciding whether to hold SurgeStop liable, the court may consider

Sellers are required to take precautions against every conceivable misuse of a product.

Manufacturers must use due care in inspecting and testing any purchased components used in a product.

Under a theory of market-share liability, a manufacturer sells "shares" of its potential strict liability and thereby spreads the risk and the cost.

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

Street Bikes, Inc., makes and sells a bicycle to Theo. Street Bikes fails to exercise "due care" to make the bicycle safe, however, and Theo is injured as a result. Street Bikes is most likely liable for

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

The doctrine of strict liability can be applied to sellers of goods, including manufacturers, but not distributors.

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 activ?ity will be

Misrepresentation in an ad is enough to show an intent to induce the reliance of anyone who may use the product.

To successfully assert a design defect, a plaintiff has to show that no reasonable alternative design was available.

Because many products cannot be made entirely safe for all uses, sellers or lessors are liable only for products that are unreasonably dangerous.

A product liability action based on negligence does not require privity of contract between the injured plaintiff and the defendant-manufacturer.

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes and sells soft drinks. Talia buys and drinks a Soda Bubbles beverage, which proves defective and injures her. One justification for holding Soda Bubbles strictly liable for the harm caused to Talia by its defective product is that

Fine Motor Company buys gas pedals and other parts from General Mechanix, Inc., and puts them in its vehicles without changing their composition. If the pedals or other parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects are

Island Breeze Company designs and makes desk, window, and ceiling fans. In a product liability suit based on negligence, Island Breeze could be liable for vio?lating its duty of care with respect to all of the following except

Alice is injured when she is struck by debris floating on her property, which was flooded by a breach of Big R Ranch's reservoir. The rule that a person who engages in certain activities may be liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any harm that results was established by

Garage Magic, Inc., contracts for the sale of a certain number of garage door openers to Home & Yard Hardware stores. Ian buys one of openers. The applicable statute of limitations prescribes a period of four years. To bring a product liability claim against Garage Magic, Ian must file a suit within four years of

Statutes of repose places outer times limit on product liability actions.

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