FYLSX Strict and Products Liability 3

Question 1

A plaintiff is injured by a defective lawnmower.
She cannot identify which of three manufacturers produced the specific unit because the serial number was destroyed in the accident.
Under market share liability, the court will likely:

Accepted Answer

Apportion liability among defendants based on their market share

Answer

Dismiss the case for failure to identify the defendant

Answer

Hold all three manufacturers jointly and severally liable for 100%

Answer

Require the plaintiff to prove which manufacturer made the product

Question 2

A plaintiff sues a retailer for strict products liability after being injured by a defective blender. The retailer argues it merely sold the product and had no role in the design or manufacture. Under strict products liability, the retailer is:

Accepted Answer

Liable because retailers in the distribution chain are strictly liable

Answer

Not liable because it did not cause the defect

Answer

Liable only if it knew of the defect before sale

Answer

Not liable if it can identify the manufacturer for the plaintiff

Question 3

A homeowner uses dynamite to remove a tree stump and injures a neighbor. The neighbor sues under strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity. The homeowner argues blasting is common in the rural area. This argument:

Accepted Answer

Is one factor courts consider in assessing whether the activity is abnormally dangerous

Answer

Eliminates strict liability because the activity is common locally

Answer

Does not eliminate strict liability but may reduce damages

Answer

Is irrelevant because dynamite use is abnormally dangerous as a matter of law everywhere

Question 4

A plaintiff claims a car's roof collapsed during a rollover accident that the manufacturer did not design for. The manufacturer argues the car was safe for normal use. Which type of defect claim is most appropriate?

Accepted Answer

Design defect, because the entire product line lacks rollover protection

Answer

Manufacturing defect, because the specific car deviated from its design

Answer

Warning defect, because consumers were not warned about rollover risks

Answer

No defect, because manufacturers need not anticipate all accidents

Question 5

Under the consumer expectations test for design defect, liability is established when:

Accepted Answer

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

Answer

The product's risks outweigh its utility using a cost-benefit analysis

Answer

The manufacturer knew of a safer alternative design that was feasible

Answer

The product did not conform to applicable safety regulations

Question 6

A bystander is injured when a defective car tire blows out and the car strikes him. He was not the purchaser or user of the car. Can he sue the tire manufacturer under strict products liability?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because strict products liability extends to bystanders foreseeably injured by the product

Answer

No, because strict products liability requires privity of contract

Answer

No, because he was not using the product when injured

Answer

Yes, but only if he proves the manufacturer was negligent

Question 7

A plaintiff successfully sues a manufacturer under strict products liability. The jury finds the plaintiff 30% comparatively at fault. In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, the plaintiff's recovery is:

Accepted Answer

Reduced by 30%

Answer

Barred entirely because the plaintiff contributed to the harm

Answer

Not reduced because comparative fault does not apply to strict liability

Answer

Reduced only if the plaintiff's fault was greater than the defendant's