Exam 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

Sea Wind Corporation makes boats. Teresa files a product liability suit against Sea Wind, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider an alternative design's

Manufacturers are commonly held liable when their negligence causes users of their products to be injured.

A manufacturer or seller has a duty to warn about a risk that is obvious or commonly known.

Baby Things Inc. makes and sells a crib to Cara. Baby Things fails to exercise "due care" to make the crib safe, and Cara's child Dua is injured as a result. Baby Things is most likely liable for

A seller who introduces into commerce an unreasonably dangerous product may be subject to a tort action for strict liability.

Product misuse is recognized as a defense to a claim for product liability only when the particular misuse was reasonably foreseeable.

DIY-Haul, Inc., makes, sells, and leases hauling equipment for consumer use. Ed files a product liability suit against DIY-Haul, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider

A product liability claim against the manufacturer of a product that is subject to extensive government regulation may be preempted.

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes soft drinks. Toby drinks a Soda beverage, which proves defective and injures him. One justification for holding Soda strictly liable for the harm caused to Toby is that

Airsoft, Inc. makes toys. Airsoft intentionally mislabels its packaged products to conceal a defect. Trusting and relying on the mislabeling, Bing buys an Airsoft product and suffers an injury. Airsoft is most likely liable for

Under the doctrine of strict liability, persons are liable only for the results of their intentional acts or their failure to exercise due care.

Wild Life LLC keeps and displays domestic and wild animals in a rural setting for an interested public. Strict liability is imposed on this activity because