Exam 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

Bright n' Clean Company makes shampoo and other hair care products. Cub is injured by the use of a Bright n' Clean product and sues the company for product liability based on negligence. To win, Cub must show that

If a product was delivered in a safe condition and subsequent mishandling made it harmful to the user, the seller is usually strictly liable.

Grass Green Company makes and sells hedge trimmers, which are designed to be safe if used properly. Hazel buys a Grass Green trimmer and lends it to her neighbor Ike. In his garage, Ike is using the trimmer as a prod to dislodge a box from a high shelf when the trimmer suddenly engages. Startled, Ike drops the trimmer, which swings around and cuts his leg. Ike files a product liability suit against Grass Green, on the ground of negligence. On what basis could the manufacturer prevail?

Strict liability is imposed only for an act that departs from a reasonable standard of care to cause an injury.

Mai is struck and injured when the brakes fail on Novi's all-terrain vehicle (ATV), which is damaged in the collision. Off-Road Inc. sold the ATV to Novi. Under product liability laws, Off-Road could be liable to

Opal is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Plank Company-made ceiling beam. At the time, Opal is not wearing any safety gear. In Opal's product liability suit against Plank, the company can most successfully raise the defense of

Petro Parts Inc. makes and sells parts for the repair of motor vehicles. Olsen suffers a loss when a defective Petro part causes damage to her car's engine. With respect to Olsen's product liability suit against Petro, an applicable statute of repose

EZ Co-op Inc. sells Fill-Up cattle feed to ranchers. Gina buys and feeds Fill-Up to her herd. The feed is poisoned. Gina sues EZ for product liability based on negligence. To win, Gina must show

Those who do not make goods, but only sell or lease them, cannot be held liable for harm caused by those goods to a consumer.

In deciding a claim of design defect, a court can consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design for a product.

The types of product defects that have traditionally been recognized in product liability law include careless marketing.

Generally, a seller is not liable for failing to warn consumers of the harm that can result from a foreseeable misuse of a product.

Ceramic Corporation makes commercial ceramic products, including heat-resistant tiles for industrial ovens. When damage occurs in an oven at Duramold Inc., strict product liability may be imposed on Ceramic if the tiles sold to Duramold were

Recharge Corporation makes batteries. Sol is injured when the Recharge battery in his phone bursts into flame. In Sol's product liability suit against the maker, alleging a design defect, the court may consider

Grill Time Inc. makes commercial cooking appliances, including a grill in use by Haute Cuisine Food Cart. Inez, a Haute employee, is injured when the grill malfunctions. If the injury occurred as a result of a misrepresentation about the product, Grill Time is most likely liable for

A product made in conformity with a manufacturer's design specifications is not considered defective regardless of a flaw in the design.

A manufacturer does not need to inspect and test any purchased components used in the final product to avoid product liability.

In a product liability suit based on negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was the "cause in fact" of an injury.

Overland Corporation makes trucks. The brakes on Pho's Overland truck malfunction, but he continues to drive it. Unable to slow down, the truck crashes through a guardrail and careens off the road. In Pho's product liability suit against Overland, the defendant can assert the defense of

Bounce Company makes trampolines and other gym equipment. Chet files a product liability suit against Bounce, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold Bounce liable, the court may consider that a manufacturer has no duty to warn about risks that are