FYLSX - Baby Bar Strict and Products Liability 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?

Accepted Answer

The company is strictly liable because blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity.

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Strict products liability based on a manufacturing defect.

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Design Defect

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Strict liability for a failure to warn.

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The manufacturer, the distributor, and the hardware store.

Answer

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.

(FYLSX) Baby Bar Exam Practice Test

(FYLSX) Baby Bar Exam Practice Test

FYLSX - Baby Bar Strict and Products Liability Questions and Answers