Multiple Choice
Fran sued Document Security Company,alleging injuries to both hands as a result of attempting to fix a jam in one of Document Security's paper shredders.Fran alleged the shredder was defective because it failed to contain warnings regarding the dangers to fingers and hands while attempting to fix jams.In order to succeed,Fran will have to show:
A) all risk of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by Document Security Company.
B) paper shredders are inherently dangerous products.
C) Fran's injuries would not have occurred but for the absence of the warnings.
D) foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by Document Security Company.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q52: A product that was sold without a
Q53: Because the defect in the product is
Q54: The assumption of risk doctrine makes the
Q55: For a defendant to be held strictly
Q56: Under the preemption defense,certain federal laws and
Q58: A statute of repose cuts off the
Q59: Under federal law,manufacturers and sellers may be
Q60: If the use of a product carries
Q61: Which of the following is NOT a
Q62: Following several injuries,a manufacturer of a chain