FYLSX - Baby Bar Strict and Products Liability Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A demolition company is hired to raze a building in a dense urban area using dynamite. The company meticulously follows all industry safety standards and regulations, exceeding the required precautions. However, the concussion from a blast, which was within expected limits for the amount of dynamite used, shatters the windows of an adjacent office building. The office building owner sues the demolition company for the cost of the repairs. What is the most likely outcome?
- The company is not liable because it exercised a high degree of care.
- The company is strictly liable because blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity. (Correct answer)
- The company is liable only if the owner can prove a specific act of negligence.
- The company is not liable because property damage from concussions is not a foreseeable harm of blasting.
Correct answer: The company is strictly liable because blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity.
Blasting with explosives is a classic example of an abnormally dangerous activity. For such activities, the defendant is held strictly liable for harm that results from the activity, regardless of the level of care exercised. The fact that the company followed all safety standards is not a defense.
Question 2: A consumer purchases a new electric kettle from a major retail store. The first time he uses it, a single faulty wire that was improperly connected during assembly at the factory causes the kettle to short-circuit and start a fire. An investigation reveals that the kettle's overall design is safe and that this particular unit was the only one in its batch with the wiring error. What is the strongest claim the consumer can bring against the manufacturer?
- Strict products liability based on a design defect.
- Negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- Strict products liability based on a manufacturing defect. (Correct answer)
- Breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Correct answer: Strict products liability based on a manufacturing defect.
A manufacturing defect occurs when a product departs from its intended design, making it more dangerous than consumers would expect. Here, the kettle's design was safe, but this specific unit was flawed due to an error in the assembly process, which is a classic manufacturing defect. This makes strict liability the most direct and powerful claim.
Question 3: A new model of a children's toy car is designed with a type of paint that contains a chemical that can cause a severe skin rash in a small percentage of children after prolonged contact. The manufacturer was unaware of this specific chemical property. A child who played with the toy develops the rash. Evidence presented at trial shows that a readily available and cost-effective alternative paint without the chemical could have been used without altering the toy's appearance or function. Which theory of products liability is most likely to succeed for the child's parents?
- Manufacturing Defect
- Failure to Warn
- Design Defect (Correct answer)
- Breach of Express Warranty
Correct answer: Design Defect
A design defect exists when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by adopting a reasonable alternative design. Here, the entire product line was dangerous as designed because of the paint choice, and a safer, feasible alternative was available. This fits the risk-utility test often used to prove a design defect.
Question 4: A pharmaceutical company markets a powerful prescription drug. While the drug is effective, the company discovers through post-market studies that it can cause a rare but serious kidney problem in patients with a specific pre-existing condition. This risk is not obvious and was not known when the drug was first released. The company fails to update its packaging or issue a warning to doctors about this newly discovered side effect. A patient with the specific pre-existing condition is prescribed the drug and suffers kidney failure. What is the patient's strongest claim against the company?
- Strict liability for a design defect.
- Strict liability for a failure to warn. (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se for violating FDA regulations.
- Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity.
Correct answer: Strict liability for a failure to warn.
A product is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when foreseeable risks could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable warnings. Once the company became aware of the risk to a specific group of patients, it had a duty to warn them. The failure to provide this warning about a non-obvious danger makes the product defective.
Question 5: A consumer is injured by a dangerously defective power tool. She purchased the tool from a local hardware store, which had acquired it from a regional distributor. The distributor, in turn, had bought it from the national manufacturer. If the consumer brings a successful strict products liability claim, from which of the following parties in the chain of distribution can she potentially recover the full amount of her damages?
- Only the manufacturer that created the defect.
- Only the hardware store from which she purchased the tool.
- The manufacturer, the distributor, and the hardware store. (Correct answer)
- The manufacturer and the distributor, but not the hardware store.
Correct answer: The manufacturer, the distributor, and the hardware store.
In a strict products liability action, any commercial supplier in the chain of distribution may be held liable for injuries caused by a defective product. This includes the manufacturer, wholesaler/distributor, and the final retailer. The purpose is to ensure the injured consumer can recover and to have the parties who profit from the product share the risk.
Question 6: A man buys a new lawnmower. The mower has a clearly visible warning label next to the discharge chute that reads: 'DANGER: Do not place hands or feet near chute while engine is running. Always turn off engine before clearing clogs.' The man reads and understands the warning. One day, the chute becomes clogged with wet grass. Impatient, the man leaves the engine running and attempts to clear the clog with his hand, suffering a severe injury. In a strict products liability suit against the manufacturer, which of the following is the manufacturer's strongest defense?
- Assumption of the risk. (Correct answer)
- Contributory negligence.
- Lack of privity of contract.
- The product was not in a defective condition.
Correct answer: Assumption of the risk.
The defense of assumption of the risk applies when a person knows of a specific risk and voluntarily proceeds in the face of that risk. By disregarding a clear, understood warning and deliberately placing his hand in the chute with the engine on, the man assumed the risk of the very injury the warning was designed to prevent. While some modern jurisdictions analyze this under comparative fault, assumption of the risk is the most precise and historically significant defense in this scenario.
FYLSX - Baby Bar Strict and Products Liability Questions and Answers
A demolition company is hired to raze a building in a dense urban area using dynamite.
The company meticulously follows all industry safety standards and regulations, exceeding the required precautions.
However, the concussion from a blast, which was within expected limits for the amount of dynamite used, shatters the windows of an adjacent office building.
The office building owner sues the demolition company for the cost of the repairs.
What is the most likely outcome?