Exam 7: Business Torts and Product Liability

If a product is safe for ordinary use, and a producer provides instructions on use for consumers, then strictly liable in tort is eliminated.

Privity is:

In Gieseke v. IDCA, Gieseke formed a company to compete with his old employer and worked with one of the former owners of his old employer in the new company. His former employer moved some of the equipment of the new company and changed its mailing address without permission of Gieseke or his partner. When Gieseke sued his former employer the courts held that the former employer:

The Restatement (Third) of Torts refers to strict liability in tort as:

Risk-utility balancing refers to the fact that:

The law of product liability is primarily concerned with:

Liability based on ____ may be imposed on a manufacturer if a causal connection can be established between the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care and an injury suffered by a consumer.

The intent to defraud is called:

Joint and several liability is liability rule in several states that allows each defendant to be potentially liable for the entire damage award when more than one firm have a similar defective product.

You may be sued in tort for the damages incurred for interfering with a contract between two other parties.

Privity is:

Compensation for injured parties accounts for ____ of the total cost of the tort system.

The Supreme Court of Alaska upheld a verdict of strict liability against a diet food producer who failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of using a diet food as baby food.

In MacPherson v. Buick, where the wheel on a new Buick collapsed, causing the car to crash, injuring MacPherson, the court of appeals held MacPherson could sue:

A warranty is an assurance from the manufacturer that its products will meet certain quality standards.

Strict liability was first applied based on implied warranties of safety of food and drink.

Negligence in product liability suits means the defendant is found to have intended to produce a substandard, unsafe product.

In MacPherson v. Buick Motor the court held for MacPherson for injuries caused by defective wheels on his Buick. This case allowed for negligence for product liability:

In Mazetti v. Armour, a court in 1913 held that a food producer must provide food safe for human consumption, even if there is no privity of contract. Liability was based on:

Green bought a scoop attachment for the front of his tractor that could be used to scoop up grain for his farm animals. After a snow, Green used the tractor to clear his driveway. Because of the cold, the scoop snapped-off and injured Green. In a suit against the maker, Green will likely: