Exam 7: Business Torts and Product Liability

An implied warranty is:

If the manufacturer provides adequate warnings, as in the case of 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, consumers:

In Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye from a broken windshield, Ford's ads about the quality of the windshield were held to create an express warranty of safety because Ford misrepresented the quality and safety of the product.

If you make an offer to sell a product to a person who is already buying the product from another party, you have interfered with contractual relations and will be liable in tort.

In Baxter v. Ford Motor, where Baxter lost an eye from a broken windshield, Ford's ads about the quality of the windshield were held to create an implied warranty of safety because Ford misrepresented the quality and safety of the product.

To avoid being sued for failure to warn users of products, manufacturers must:

The ____ doctrine holds manufacturers liable to consumers injured by defective products regardless of whether the manufacturer exercised all reasonable care or not.

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, the courts held that the former employer had interfered with prospective business relations.

Defenses against strict liability include(s):

The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product liability says that when considering a defective product the courts should use:

The law of product liability is primarily concerned with:

When two professors conducted a study of the American and the Japanese tort systems, they found that the:

During the 20th century, when consumers were injured as a result of using defective products, courts adopted a new legal standard that could apply to such cases, so that negligence was no longer the only standard:

An express warranty is a promise that is clearly stated by the seller to the buyer; it is a part of the contract.

In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products the court imposed strict liability on a producer due to failure to prevent a defect in its product that caused injury to a consumer.

A warranty is:

As stated by the California high court in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, where Greenman was injured when a tool his wife bought him malfunctioned, manufacturers should bear the costs of injuries their products cause and thus:

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:

If a producer did not foresee a possible danger with a product that does, in fact, cause injury, the producer cannot be held negligent in tort.

The sophisticated user defense: