Exam 10: Product Liability

"Contraceptive Injuries." Drug company ABC Drugs came out with a new birth control pill guaranteed to prevent pregnancy for one year after the consumption of one pill. The FDA approved warnings of the drug's side effects including nausea and headache to be provided with the pill. After it was initially put on the market, the company became aware of some risks of dizziness from taking the drug. The company, however, did not warn of that risk because the company was concerned that individuals might not buy the pill, and federal law did not specifically require a warning regarding dizziness. Belinda thought the pill was a great idea and obtained a prescription for it at a date after the company became aware of the issues involving dizziness. She took one and felt fine for a few days. Then, however, she began feeling dizzy. Her dizziness caused her to fall breaking her leg on some steps. She later discovered that the birth control pill likely made her dizzy. Belinda decided to sue under a state law claim for failure to warn, however, she waited a number of years before bringing her action. The drug company claimed that it had no duty to list dizziness as a risk because its warning complied with all FDA requirements. The drug company also claimed that the time in which it could be sued had expired both because Belinda waited too long after she was injured and also too long from the date of product purchase. -The defense that Belinda waited too long after the product was purchased in which to sue is a defense based upon which of the following?

"Contraceptive Injuries." Drug company ABC Drugs came out with a new birth control pill guaranteed to prevent pregnancy for one year after the consumption of one pill. The FDA approved warnings of the drug's side effects including nausea and headache to be provided with the pill. After it was initially put on the market, the company became aware of some risks of dizziness from taking the drug. The company, however, did not warn of that risk because the company was concerned that individuals might not buy the pill, and federal law did not specifically require a warning regarding dizziness. Belinda thought the pill was a great idea and obtained a prescription for it at a date after the company became aware of the issues involving dizziness. She took one and felt fine for a few days. Then, however, she began feeling dizzy. Her dizziness caused her to fall breaking her leg on some steps. She later discovered that the birth control pill likely made her dizzy. Belinda decided to sue under a state law claim for failure to warn, however, she waited a number of years before bringing her action. The drug company claimed that it had no duty to list dizziness as a risk because its warning complied with all FDA requirements. The drug company also claimed that the time in which it could be sued had expired both because Belinda waited too long after she was injured and also too long from the date of product purchase. -What is the most likely result regarding the company's position that it had no duty to warn of the risk of dizziness because it complied with FDA requirements?

List the seven factors set forth in the text from the Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage case, involving injuries caused by a combine, that a trial court may find helpful when balancing a product's utility against the risk the product creates.

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

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

Under the market share theory, a plaintiff may be able to recover in a products liability action even if the plaintiff cannot trace the harmful product to a particular manufacturer.

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

Which of the following is a reference to being a party to a contract?

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?

Japanese law fails to recognize fault of the part of the consumer in product liability cases, and manufacturers must bear the full burden when a product is found to be defective.

Which of the following is a defense used by a defendant to demonstrate that his alleged negligent behavior was reasonable, given the available scientific knowledge existing at the time the product was sold or produced?

Describe the two approaches taken by courts in negligent failure-to-warn cases involving drugs and cosmetics causing adverse reactions in regard to consumers who would not be considered sophisticated users.

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

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?

Paul was very excited about his first new vehicle purchase. He borrowed funds from his bank with which to purchase the car. Unfortunately, just a few days after he purchased the vehicle, the pistons in the engine overheated causing the engine to seize rendering the vehicle unusable. No one was injured, but Paul is very upset about his vehicle and plans to sue based on strict liability under the theory set forth by Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Which of the following is the most likely resolution of his claim?

Which of the following do courts often consider in determining whether a manufacturer was negligent in failing to warn?

What was the result at the Supreme Court level in Wyeth v. Levine, the case in the text in which the defending drug company took the position that the plaintiff's jury verdict on her state law claim alleging that the defendant improperly labeled a drug was preempted by federal law and should be overturned?

In most states, what must a plaintiff prove to succeed in a strict-liability action alleging a defective product?

Which of the following defenses is an argument that harm was caused not by the defendant's negligence but by the plaintiff's failure to properly use the product?

What four considerations did the U.S. Supreme Court identify in the case of Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical for relevant and reliable expert opinions?