Exam 7: Business Torts and Product Liability

In a case of intentional interference with contractual relations the claim is:

When a person suffers an injury due to deliberate deception, there may be a tort of:

Unless a consumer buys a product directly from the producer:

Company B uses dangerous acid made by Company A in its production. B fails to warn a new employee of the risks in using the acid and the employee is injured. If Company B is sued by the employee, its defense will be that A and the employee are:

If a third party observes a fraud:

The ____ holds that the bulk supplier has a duty to take reasonable steps to insure that its buyer is knowledgeable and equipped to provide warnings to the ultimate users, but it does not have to police the details of what is done as the product continues down the chain of use.

In Baxter v. Ford Motor (where Baxter lost an eye from a broken windshield) Baxter was compensated by Ford under the rule of strict liability in tort for injuries he suffered due to Ford's defective product.

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, misrepresentation about product quality in advertising may be the basis for:

In Parish v. ICON, where a person was severely injured when jumping on a trampoline and sued its maker and the maker of a safety net for failure to warn, the Iowa high court held that:

Under the strict liability doctrine, the focus is on the problems with the product, rather than:

Kim lost control of his Toyota. The vehicle rolled and he suffered injuries. He sued for design defect because the vehicle lacked electronic stability control, a feature that would have increased his chance of controlling the vehicle so it would not have gone off the road. The appeals court held that:

Design defect cases focus on:

The rule of strict liability in torts used in the Restatement (Second) of Torts helped bring about nationwide adoption of the rule.

The first major application of the doctrine of strict liability for consumer products was in the area of:

The Restatement (Third) of Torts, which some state courts have adopted, tends to abandon the traditional distinction between negligence and strict liability in design defect cases.

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 he had a good cause of action for:

In a suit for fraud, the plaintiff must establish a good reason to rely on the bad information provided by the defendant.

There is currently a system made up of a mix of ____ and tort law applying to products.

McKenzie worked in a service station. Changing a customer's tire, he over-inflated it, causing it to explode. This severely injured his left hand. Neither the tire nor the rim was found to be defective. In a lawsuit against the tire manufacturer McKenzie will likely:

A Pennsylvania court imposed strict liability on a gun manufacturer because of hearing losses caused by long-term users exposed to gunfire. The liability was based on: