Multiple Choice
ThePLIVA,Inc.v.Mensing case discussed in the text,involved theissue of whether the federal law requirement that generic drugs must bear the same FDA-approved labels as their brand-name counterparts preempts state law claims for failure to warn.What was the holding by the US Supreme Court?
A) That federal law did not preempt state law claims for failure to warn.
B) That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn.
C) That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on strict liability but that failure to warn claims based on negligence could proceed.
D) That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on negligence but that failure to warn claims based on strict liability could proceed.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q2: A design defect may result from the
Q5: To prove _ in a product liability
Q14: Under federal law a retailer who had
Q15: An unusual use that is reasonably foreseeable
Q52: Strict liability in tort applies only to
Q54: Because other countries have applied principles of
Q55: For a defendant to be held strictly
Q57: Which of the following is true under
Q59: Under the doctrine of _,when a person
Q60: Under the doctrine of _,the plaintiff's damages