Exam 5: Product Liability

Downhill Racer Company makes and sells a pair of skis to Elinor. Downhill fails to exercise “due care” to make the skis safe, and Elinor is injured as a result. Downhill Racer is most likely liable for

To succeed in a product liability suit, an injured plaintiff must show that a product's defect was the proximate cause of the injury.

Global Insulation Company makes and sells fire-retardant building materials.To determine whether the risk of harm from the products as designed outweigh their utility to the users and the public, most courts would engage in

A failure to exercise reasonable care is negligence

Fine Motor Company buys auto parts from General Mechanix, Inc., and puts them in its vehicles without changing their composition. If the parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects are

An action in strict product liability requires that the product be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it.

To be liable for product liability, a seller must normally be engaged in the business ofdistributing the product that causes harm by its use.

BioChem Corporation, ChemCo Company, and DexLabs Inc. make and distribute toxic chemicals. In a product-liability suit against all of these parties, the court is most likely to impose market-share li-ability if it cannot be proved which of the parties

Under a theory of market-share liability, a manufacturer sells "shares" of its potential strict liability and thereby spreads the risk and the cost.

MedBeat Inc., makes medical devices, including heart pacemakers. Nina, a heart patient, files a product liabil-ity suit against MedBeat, alleging a warning defect with respect to its pacemaker. In deciding whether to hold MedBeat liable, the court may consider whether there is a foreseeable risk of harm posed by the pacemaker and

A statute of limitations may restrict the time within which an action in product liability may be brought.

River Rock Company makes spas and hot tubs. Sterling files a product liability suit against River Rock, alleging a warning defect in one of its products. In deciding whether to hold the defendant liable, the court may take note that a manufacturer or seller has no duty to warn about risks that are