Multiple Choice
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?
A) For plaintiff, because no comparative negligence was found.
B) For plaintiff, because the degree of potential harm was substantial and it would have been easy to place a warning on the product label.
C) For defendant, because it had no duty to warn.
D) For defendant, because there was no proof of market share.
E) For defendant, because the plaintiff's adverse reaction from the ingestion of only one capsule was extremely rare.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q3: Which of the following is true regarding
Q4: What is the term used by courts
Q5: Which theory might allow a plaintiff to
Q6: Under strict product liability theory, which of
Q7: [Disappointing Boat Purchase] Ava went to purchase
Q9: As recognized by the court in Sperry-New
Q10: When the user of a cosmetic or
Q11: Who could be considered foreseeable plaintiffs in
Q12: Which of the following codes highlights a
Q13: No duty to warn exists for dangers