FYLSX Strict and Products Liability 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A plaintiff sues a hotel under strict liability after being bitten by a rattlesnake kept in the hotel's petting zoo exhibit. The hotel argues the snake had a handler and was secured. The plaintiff will most likely:
- Lose because the hotel exercised reasonable care in securing the snake
- Win because wild animals trigger strict liability regardless of care taken (Correct answer)
- Lose because the plaintiff assumed the risk by visiting the zoo
- Win only if the plaintiff can prove the hotel was negligent
Correct answer: Win because wild animals trigger strict liability regardless of care taken
Owners of wild animals are strictly liable for injuries those animals cause regardless of the precautions taken, because wild animals retain their dangerous nature.
Question 2: A defendant stored large quantities of flammable chemicals next to a residential neighborhood. An explosion injured several residents. Under strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, which factor most supports liability?
- The defendant stored the chemicals for a legitimate business purpose
- The risk cannot be eliminated even with reasonable care and the location is inappropriate (Correct answer)
- The chemicals are commonly used in industrial settings nationally
- The defendant obtained all required permits for storage
Correct answer: The risk cannot be eliminated even with reasonable care and the location is inappropriate
The inability to eliminate the risk with reasonable care and the inappropriateness of the location are among the strongest factors supporting strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
Question 3: A plaintiff sues under strict products liability. The defendant argues the plaintiff's injuries were caused by a subsequent modification to the product made by a third party after sale. This defense is most likely:
- Ineffective because the original defect caused the injury
- Effective if the modification was unforeseeable and materially altered the product (Correct answer)
- Ineffective because manufacturers are liable for all product uses
- Effective only if the plaintiff made the modification herself
Correct answer: Effective if the modification was unforeseeable and materially altered the product
An unforeseeable material alteration by a third party after sale can break the chain of causation and relieve the manufacturer of strict liability.
Question 4: Under strict products liability, the plaintiff must prove all of the following EXCEPT:
- The product was defective when it left the defendant's control
- The defect caused the plaintiff's injury
- The defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in making the product (Correct answer)
- The plaintiff suffered actual damages
Correct answer: The defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in making the product
Strict products liability does not require proof that the defendant was negligent or failed to exercise reasonable care — the focus is on the product's condition, not the manufacturer's conduct.
Question 5: A plaintiff purchases a used chainsaw from a neighbor at a garage sale. The saw has a defective chain brake that injures her. She sues the original manufacturer. The manufacturer's best defense under strict products liability is:
- The plaintiff assumed the risk by purchasing a used power tool (Correct answer)
- The product was sold used, breaking the chain of commercial distribution
- The manufacturer had no knowledge of the defect at time of original sale
- The plaintiff was comparatively at fault for using a used saw
Correct answer: The plaintiff assumed the risk by purchasing a used power tool
While manufacturers can be liable for defective products sold through used channels in some jurisdictions, assumption of risk — knowingly using a visibly worn or potentially unsafe used power tool — is the strongest available defense here.
Question 6: A plaintiff brings a strict products liability claim for an injury caused by a blood transfusion containing a virus undetectable by current medical technology. The blood bank argues the blood was as safe as current science permitted. Courts in most jurisdictions will:
- Hold the blood bank strictly liable because the blood was defective
- Exempt blood and human tissue products from strict products liability by statute or common law (Correct answer)
- Apply strict liability because the blood bank is a commercial seller
- Apply negligence only after the plaintiff proves the blood bank failed to test adequately
Correct answer: Exempt blood and human tissue products from strict products liability by statute or common law
Most jurisdictions have enacted blood shield laws or adopted common law rules exempting blood and human tissue from strict products liability, classifying their provision as a service, not a sale.
Question 7: A defendant operates a nuclear power plant that releases radiation injuring nearby residents even though all safety regulations were followed. Residents sue under strict liability. The most applicable theory is:
- Negligence per se based on regulatory standards
- Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity (Correct answer)
- Trespass to land because radiation entered their property
- Nuisance only if the harm was unreasonable
Correct answer: Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity
Nuclear power operations are a classic example of an abnormally dangerous activity that triggers strict liability regardless of the care exercised or regulatory compliance.
FYLSX Strict and Products Liability 5
A plaintiff sues a hotel under strict liability after being bitten by a rattlesnake kept in the hotel's petting zoo exhibit.
The hotel argues the snake had a handler and was secured.
The plaintiff will most likely: