FYLSX Strict and Products Liability 4

Question 1

A restaurant serves a cherry pie and a customer breaks a tooth on a cherry pit. Under the foreign-natural test for strict products liability in food cases, the restaurant is:

Accepted Answer

Not strictly liable because cherry pits are natural to cherries

Answer

Strictly liable because the pit caused injury

Answer

Strictly liable because consumers do not expect pits in prepared pie

Answer

Not strictly liable only if the pit was disclosed on the menu

Question 2

A plaintiff claims a pharmaceutical company failed to update drug warnings after post-market studies revealed new risks. This is best described as a:

Accepted Answer

Post-sale duty to warn claim

Answer

Manufacturing defect claim

Answer

Design defect claim based on the risk-utility test

Answer

Breach of implied warranty of merchantability

Question 3

A plaintiff sues under strict liability after being harmed by a component part installed in a finished product. The component manufacturer argues it supplied the part to the specifications of the assembler. Under the raw material/component parts doctrine, the component manufacturer is most likely:

Accepted Answer

Not strictly liable if the component was not defective itself and defect arose from the assembler's design

Answer

Strictly liable because its part caused the injury

Answer

Strictly liable only if it knew the assembler's design was dangerous

Answer

Not strictly liable because it was not in privity with the plaintiff

Question 4

A gun manufacturer sells a firearm that works exactly as designed but is used by a criminal to injure someone. The victim sues the manufacturer under strict products liability. The court will most likely:

Accepted Answer

Dismiss because the product performed as intended and the harm was caused by criminal misuse

Answer

Hold the manufacturer strictly liable for placing a dangerous product in commerce

Answer

Hold the manufacturer liable for failure to design safer technology

Answer

Hold the manufacturer liable under abnormally dangerous activity doctrine

Question 5

Under the risk-utility test for design defect, which factor does NOT weigh in the analysis?

Accepted Answer

The manufacturer's subjective belief about the product's safety

Answer

The probability that the product will cause harm

Answer

The availability of a safer alternative design

Answer

The social utility of the product

Question 6

A plaintiff is injured by an exploding fire extinguisher. She cannot explain why it exploded. She invokes res ipsa loquitur. To use this doctrine in a strict products liability case, the plaintiff must show:

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff did not misuse the product and the injury is the type caused by manufacturing defects

Answer

The explosion is the kind of accident that ordinarily does not occur without negligence

Answer

The product was in the exclusive control of the manufacturer at the time of injury

Answer

The defendant had superior knowledge of the product's dangerous condition

Question 7

A strict liability claim for abnormally dangerous activity requires that the harm result from the:

Accepted Answer

Specific risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous

Answer

Negligent execution of the activity

Answer

Intentional conduct of the defendant

Answer

Foreseeable use of a product in commerce