Exam 7: Business Torts and Product Liability

The tort of intentional misrepresentation requires a showing that the defendant knew there was false information being passed.

While sitting beside a swimming pool, a neighbor, Bob, a roof installer, tells you that you should buy stock in HotNet because it is about to skyrocket in value. You invest all your money in the stock, which then drops to zero. You can successfully sue Bob for:

Not only must manufacturers produce products safely, they must also think about how consumers might misuse the products and then warn consumers not to engage in these kinds of dangerous activities.

In Parish v. ICON, where a man was seriously injured when using a trampoline, the courts held that while the trampoline was not defective, the safety net around the trampoline was because its instructions were insufficient to be clear.

Unknown hazards are:

Meddling with another's business in an unreasonable and improper manner to improve one's own place in the market it an example of the tort of:

Scienter means a defendant knew false information was being passed to another party.

As seen in Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye because the glass in his car windshield was not shatterproof as Ford had claimed, ____ may be the basis for strict liability in tort.

The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product defect recommends that a risk-utility balancing test be used.

In Old Island Fumigation v. Barbee, a fumigation company sprayed two condominiums. Some of the fumes leaked, without Old Island's knowledge, into a third, unprotected condominium. In this case Old Island:

A(n) ____ warranty is one the law may insert regardless of actual contract terms.

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:

A gun manufacturer that fails to warn its users that hearing loss may occur due to long-term exposure to gun fire may be strictly liable in tort for hearing loss.

If the plaintiff in a fraud case was aware that the key information was false, but went ahead with the deal anyway, then:

An express warranty of safety in a product is one the law derives by inference from the nature of the transaction between the parties.

Which of the following is not a potential statutory limit on potential tort liability:

The Restatement (Second) of Torts Sect. 402A describes:

A producer is relieved of strict liability in tort if it can show that it used all possible care to construct the product in question.

The Supreme Court of California in Greenman v. Yuba Power led in adopting a general rule:

Strict liability may be imposed if you, the buyer, receive an oral or written statement about the quality of a good, that statement becomes part of your bargain with the manufacturer, and you suffer an injury because the statement was not accurate. This is known as: