Exam 10: Product-Liability

Glade recently went to see an ophthalmologist for severe glaucoma.The doctor stated that Glade's vision was in danger and prescribed Seerite made by Drugco.Seerite was the newest and most promising treatment for glaucoma that exists.The product literature stated,"When used as directed,Seerite is 100% safe and effective for glaucoma." After reading this literature,Glade put it in the trash.Glade's examination of the pamphlet had overlooked a small statement on the back that read "Warning: In 2% of the population this product may produce uncontrollable weight gain." Three weeks after using Seerite,Glade had gained 50 pounds and continued to gain weight rapidly.Glade has stopped using Seerite but cannot lose the weight,which has created a separate health risk.Is Seerite a defectively designed drug? What defenses would be available to Drugco against this claim? Is there any other theory under strict product liability law that Glade may use to recover against Drugco? Discuss fully.

In an extreme case,a judge may set aside a jury verdict on causation grounds,if:

In regard to a product liability action,a disclaimer of liability is generally effective.

Which of the following is NOT true regarding product liability in the European Union according to the European Union product liability directive?

Courts examining the issue have reached varying results regarding whether computer software is a product subject to state product liability law.In which of the following situations have courts ruled it subject to liability law?

Which of the following is true under the UCC regarding the requirement of privity in a breach of warranty action?

The Restatement (Third)requires that any claim of design defect be supported by a showing of a reasonable alternative design.

In which of the following cases would a manufacturer or seller be held liable for a user's injuries?

According to the Restatement (Third)formulation of product liability law,a product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor.

Under the doctrine of __________,the plaintiff's damages in a strict liability action may be reduced by the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury.

Under the __________ defense,a manufacturer is not liable to a sophisticated user of its product for failure to warn of a risk,harm,or danger if the sophisticated user knew or should have known of the risk,harm,or danger.

A product that was sold without a component part properly fastened to the product is an example of a __________ defect.

Because the defect in the product is the basis for liability,under strict liability in tort,the injured person may recover damages even if the seller exercised all possible care.

The assumption of risk doctrine makes the manufacturer liable for a resulting injury.

For a defendant to be held strictly liable,the plaintiff must prove that the defect existed at the time the product left the defendant.

Under the preemption defense,certain federal laws and regulations that set minimum safety standards are held to preempt state-law product liability claims.

Fran sued Document Security Company,alleging injuries to both hands as a result of attempting to fix a jam in one of Document Security's paper shredders.Fran alleged the shredder was defective because it failed to contain warnings regarding the dangers to fingers and hands while attempting to fix jams.In order to succeed,Fran will have to show:

A statute of repose cuts off the right to assert a product liability action.

Under federal law,manufacturers and sellers may be held strictly liable for a defective product but only if negligence can be shown.

If the use of a product carries an obvious risk,the manufacturer will not be held liable for injuries that result from ignoring the risk.