Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
To cool off his warm apartment, Jeff buys a ceiling fan, manufactured by EasyBreeze, Inc., and has it installed in his bedroom. Upon using the fan for the first time, Jeff discovers that the fan makes a loud grinding sound as it rotates. Jeff calls the installer who tells him that the sound will go away with continued use. That night, before, going to bed, Jeff turns the fan on. In the middle of the night, he is woken up by a loud crash. Upon turning on the light in his room he discovers that the fan's blades have become detached, have been flung across the room and have destroyed his television set and a valuable vase. It turns out that a manufacturing defect involving the fan's motor caused the accident. In an action against EasyBreeze, Inc., Jeff will:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where manufacturing defects exist, the product is essentially not in the condition that the manufacturer intended it to be in when he sold it. Today, most jurisdictions hold manufacturers and suppliers strictly liable for the injuries their defective products cause. Thus, Jeff will win without having to prove the four elements of negligence.
Incorrect! Where manufacturing defects exist, the product is essentially not in the condition that the manufacturer intended it to be in when he sold it. Today, most jurisdictions hold manufacturers and suppliers strictly liable for the injuries their defective products cause. Thus, Jeff will win without having to prove the four elements of negligence.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Lance goes down to a local sporting goods store and buys a top of the line racing bike. Lance brings the bike home, calls his friend Greg and challenges him to a race. As Lance and Greg are racing through the streets, one of the bolts holding the wheels to the bike frame breaks on Lance's bike. The front wheel of Lance's bike comes loose and Lance loses control, crashes into a tree and suffers extensive injuries. Lance will be able to recover under a strict liability theory but only if he can prove that the bike was not in the condition it was supposed to be in when it left the manufacturer's possession:
Correct A plaintiff can recover in strict liability but only for manufacturing defects. A manufacturing defect exists when the product is essentially not in the condition that the manufacturer intended it to be in when he sold it. Therefore, in order for Lance to recover in strict liability, he will have to show that the bike was not in the condition it was supposed to be in when it left the manufacturers possession. Thus, the correct answer is TRUE.
Incorrect! A plaintiff can recover in strict liability but only for manufacturing defects. A manufacturing defect exists when the product is essentially not in the condition that the manufacturer intended it to be in when he sold it. Therefore, in order for Lance to recover in strict liability, he will have to show that the bike was not in the condition it was supposed to be in when it left the manufacturers possession. Thus, the correct answer is TRUE.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
If a plaintiff is injured by a product he buys and he sues the manufacturer under a design defect theory and the jury decides that the product was a useful one, there was no way the manufacturer could have made the product any safer and that the product performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to, the defendant will recover for his injuries anyway:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct If the defendant cannot show that the product could have been made safer or that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary buyer would have expected it to, he will be unable to prove either the "feasible alternative" test or the "consumer expectation" test and he will not be able to recover for his injuries. Therefore, the correct answer is FALSE.
Incorrect! If the defendant cannot show that the product could have been made safer or that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary buyer would have expected it to, he will be unable to prove either the "feasible alternative" test or the "consumer expectation" test and he will not be able to recover for his injuries. Therefore, the correct answer is FALSE.
Question 4
Lance goes down to a local sporting goods store and buys a top of the line racing bike. Lance brings the bike home and puts it in his garage to wait for the weatherr to warm up. A few weeks later, before Lance has had a chance to ride the bike, he gets a notice from the bike's manufacturer saying that, because of a manufacturing defect, the bolt that holds the wheels in place weaken when the bike is used at high speeds and may break. The notice invites Lance to return the bike for a new model that does not have this manufacturing defect. Lance ignores the notice and takes the bike out for a spin anyway. As Lance is racing through the streets, the front wheel of the bike comes loose and Lance loses control, crashes into a tree and suffers extensive injuries. Lance will be able to recover under a strict liability theory because the accident was caused by a manufacturing defect:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Although strict liability does apply in manufacturing defect cases, there are ways in which the manufacturer can avoid liability. One of these ways is if the manufacturer warns people who bought the product before the danger was discovered of the recently discovered defects. Here, the manufacturer did just that but Lance chose to ride the bike anyway. The warning was enough to insulate the manufacturer from liability. Therefore, Lance will not be able to recover for his injuries and the correct answer is FALSE.
Incorrect! Although strict liability does apply in manufacturing defect cases, there are ways in which the manufacturer can avoid liability. One of these ways is if the manufacturer warns people who bought the product before the danger was discovered of the recently discovered defects. Here, the manufacturer did just that but Lance chose to ride the bike anyway. The warning was enough to insulate the manufacturer from liability. Therefore, Lance will not be able to recover for his injuries and the correct answer is FALSE.
Question 5
Connie Edison has just purchased a new radio that she keeps in her bathroom so that she can listen to music when she is in the shower. One night, after a particularly hard day, Connie decides to take a hot bath and relax. She plugs her radio in, sets in on the edge of the tub and gets in. Unfortunately, she accidentally knocks the radio into the tub while she is getting in. The radio shorts out and Connie suffers severe injuries from the electrical shocks she sustains. Connie sues the radio manufacturer, saying that while there was nothing wrong with the radio itself, there was no warning either on the radio or on the packaging that there was a 'risk of electrical shock if the radio fell into the water'. With this argument, Connie will be able to recover against the manufacturer:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In warning defect cases, the product is in the condition it is supposed to be in but the product's packaging or instruction book fails to warn the buyer of unexpected dangers from foreseeable misuse. In order for warnings to be required, the danger must be one that a reasonable user would not have expected or anticipated. Here, it is safe to say that reasonable users of electrical appliances know that there is a risk of electric shock if you use those appliances near water. That being the case, no warnings were necessary and Connie will not be able to recover against the manufacturer. Although this point can be argued both ways, the better answer here is FALSE.
Incorrect! In warning defect cases, the product is in the condition it is supposed to be in but the product's packaging or instruction book fails to warn the buyer of unexpected dangers from foreseeable misuse. In order for warnings to be required, the danger must be one that a reasonable user would not have expected or anticipated. Here, it is safe to say that reasonable users of electrical appliances know that there is a risk of electric shock if you use those appliances near water. That being the case, no warnings were necessary and Connie will not be able to recover against the manufacturer. Although this point can be argued both ways, the better answer here is FALSE.
Question 6
Tex is an 85-year-old billionaire who has just married Anna Nicole, the twenty two year old love of his life. Tex and Anna would like to start a family and Tex contacts his doctor about getting a prescription for Niagra, a new potency drug. The makers of Niagra enclose a sheet of warnings in every shipment that they make to doctors saying that men over the age of seventy five should not take Niagra because the risk of heart attack increases. However, the prescription bottles that the patients receive do not have any warnings on them. Therefore, unless the doctor informs the patient about the warnings, the patient never finds out. Tex's doctor gives him a prescription for the drug but does not tell him that the risk of heart attack in men over the age of seventy five is increased by taking Niagra. That night, Tex takes two of the pills and, several minutes later, suffers a massive heart attack. If Tex sues the drug's maker and argues that there were no warnings that he was aware of, he will be able to recover:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Usually, in order for a warning to protect a manufacturer from liability, the warning must actually reach the people for whom the product poses a risk. However, the exception that most jurisdictions follow is that, where pharmaceuticals are involved, the appropriate warnings only have to reach the prescribing doctor and not the actual patient. Therefore, Tex will not be able to recover from the drug's maker for his injuries and the correct answer is FALSE (keep in mind that he may be able to recover from the doctor).
Incorrect! Usually, in order for a warning to protect a manufacturer from liability, the warning must actually reach the people for whom the product poses a risk. However, the exception that most jurisdictions follow is that, where pharmaceuticals are involved, the appropriate warnings only have to reach the prescribing doctor and not the actual patient. Therefore, Tex will not be able to recover from the drug's maker for his injuries and the correct answer is FALSE (keep in mind that he may be able to recover from the doctor).