AZ Bar Torts 3

Question 1

Which factor is most critical in determining whether an activity is 'abnormally dangerous' for strict liability purposes under the Restatement approach?

Accepted Answer

Whether the risk of the activity cannot be eliminated even with the exercise of reasonable care

Answer

Whether the activity is conducted in a densely populated urban area

Answer

Whether the activity is uncommon or unusual in the surrounding community

Answer

Whether the activity involves the use of inherently dangerous instrumentalities or substances

Question 2

A manufacturing defect in products liability is best described as:

Accepted Answer

A deviation of a specific product unit from its intended design, making it more dangerous than intended

Answer

A flaw in the product's design that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to all users

Answer

A manufacturer's failure to provide adequate warnings about the product's risks

Answer

A failure of the product to meet the safety expectations of the ordinary consumer

Question 3

Under the consumer expectations test for design defect in products liability, a product is defective if:

Accepted Answer

The product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended

Answer

A reasonable alternative design was available that would have reduced the foreseeable risk of harm

Answer

The product's risks outweigh its utility under a cost-benefit analysis applied by the court

Answer

The manufacturer knew of the risk and consciously chose not to eliminate it

Question 4

In a failure-to-warn products liability claim, the adequacy of a product warning is judged by whether:

Accepted Answer

The warning reasonably communicated the nature and extent of the risk to the ordinary user

Answer

The warning was written, prominent, and placed in a required location on the product

Answer

The manufacturer's internal safety team reviewed and approved the warning language

Answer

The plaintiff actually read and understood the warning before using the product

Question 5

Arizona follows a pure comparative negligence system. Under this system, a plaintiff found 60% at fault for their own injuries may recover:

Accepted Answer

40% of their total damages from the defendant

Answer

Nothing, because the plaintiff's fault exceeds 50% of the total fault

Answer

60% of their total damages from the defendant

Answer

Full compensatory damages because the defendant was also at fault

Question 6

Which of the following is NOT a recoverable element of compensatory damages in a tort action?

Accepted Answer

Punitive damages

Answer

Past and future medical expenses

Answer

Lost wages and diminished earning capacity

Answer

Pain, suffering, and emotional distress

Question 7

The 'eggshell plaintiff' (thin skull) rule provides that:

Accepted Answer

A defendant takes the plaintiff as found and is liable for the full extent of harm even if the plaintiff was unusually susceptible to injury

Answer

Defendants are liable only for the foreseeable type and extent of harm caused to a plaintiff

Answer

A plaintiff with a pre-existing condition cannot recover for the aggravation of that condition by the defendant

Answer

Plaintiffs must disclose relevant pre-existing medical conditions before bringing a negligence claim