Product Liability - Practice Exam

A plaintiff may usually recover in contract and in tort for injuries caused by defective products

True

“This watch is waterproof” is an example of puffing

False

“This iPod holds 2000 songs” is an implied warranty.

False

“This iPod has excellent sound quality” is an implied warranty.

False

A seller does not have to use the term “promise or guarantee” to make an express warranty.

True

The Federal Trade Commission investigates price claims such as “50% off” on consumer goods to ensure that the original price is not artificially inflated and the savings described by the vendor are accurate.

True

Claims about the ability or effectiveness of a product should be supported by evidence to avoid a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission

True

“Bait and switch” occurs when a company advertises an inexpensive product to lure customers into a store and then either refuses to sell the product to you or does not have sufficient quantity in stock. The seller then attempts to switch the customer to a “better” (more expensive) product.

True

The implied warranty of merchantability is given in all sales of products by all sellers.

False

Under this warranty, automobiles must accelerate and brake.

Implied warranty of merchantability

If a seller promises that goods are suitable for a use known to the seller and the item is unsuitable, this is violated

Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose

Most contracts for the sale of automobiles will include a disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability. This means that:

If the car doesn’t work, the buyer can’t successfully sue the seller.

Express warranties can be disclaimed at any time.

False

Privity is required between the buyer and seller of a defective product under strict liability theory

False

Manufacturers have a duty to warn buyers when there is a foreseeably dangerous use of a product that buyers know is dangerous

False

Is a motorcycle manufacturer strictly liable to a plaintiff for the injuries suffered in the motorcycle accident during normal use?

No. Certain products are inherently dangerous and are known to the general population to be so under the theory of assumption of the risk

Strict liability applies to

Persons engaged in the business of selling such a product

A cell phone charger is produced with a defect that causes fires because the company inadvertently installed counterfeit components. If a seller does not know that the chargers are defective, the seller is liable for

Strict Liability

Privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant is required

For recovery under breach of warranty

In March 2010, a New Jersey man’s face was badly burned after leaning over his sizzling hot plate of fajitas from Applebee’s restaurant to pray. He sued Applebee’s for his injuries. The appeals court determined that the restaurant was not responsible because it has no need to warn patrons "…against a danger that is open and obvious." The ruling is based on what theory?

Assumption of risk

Knowledge of a defect and failure to prevent it from causing harm creates liability for a seller or manufacturer under negligence theory.

True

Takata manufactures airbag inflators for roughly 25% of the airbags that go into vehicles manufactured throughout the world. Honda, BMW, Ford, Nissan and Toyota use airbags with Takata inflators. Reports of deaths and serious injuries have emerged alleging that a defect in the inflators has caused them to explode, propelling metal shards released from the inflators at high speed into unsuspecting drivers and passengers.

What could the car dealers do to avoid strict liability for injuries caused by airbag components?

nothing because strict liability can not be disclaimed

When auto manufacturers like Honda sell new cars at its dealerships they give this (unless it is disclaimed)

an implied warranty of merchantability

If you had asked a salesperson to choose a car for you that would have low emissions and high gas mileage, but the vehicle that he chose for you had high emissions, then this is breached

the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose

If a dealer told you that the average emissions on its diesel vehicles was well below the allowable vehicle pollution limit so it would pass an emissions test, but the vehicle emissions were much higher than you were told, then this would be

a breach of an express warranty.

Hypothetically, if the high emissions caused a customer to develop a medical condition, the company would be liable under this theory

a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability

In March 2019, a jury found that Monsanto’s weedkiller called Roundup was a “substantial factor” that caused a California man's cancer. The next phases of the trial involve whether Monsanto is responsible and the amount of damages. Thousands of similar cases against Monsanto are pending in state and federal courts. In August 2018, a California jury awarded a former groundskeeper named Dewayne Johnson $289 million in punitive and compensatory damages (later reduced to $78 million).

. If Monsanto knew of the dangers to customers and others who use the product, then it is liable for

negligence

n the fact pattern above, if Monsanto did not know of the defect then it is liable for

strict liability

The groundskeeper in the fact pattern most likely did not buy the product himself. Why could he recover damages if he did not buy the product himself?

under strict liability, privity is not required