FYLSX Strict and Products Liability 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A manufacturer sells a power saw with a blade guard that can be easily removed without tools. A user removes the guard and is injured. Under strict products liability, which factor most favors the manufacturer?
- The product was sold without adequate warnings
- The user's removal of the guard was an unforeseeable misuse (Correct answer)
- The guard was a safety feature, not a defect
- The product was unreasonably dangerous as designed
Correct answer: The user's removal of the guard was an unforeseeable misuse
If removing the guard was an unforeseeable misuse, strict products liability may not apply because liability requires the product to be used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
Question 2: Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which of the following sellers is NOT subject to strict products liability?
- A retail store that sold a defective appliance
- A manufacturer that produced a faulty product
- A casual seller who occasionally sells used goods (Correct answer)
- A distributor in the chain of commercial distribution
Correct answer: A casual seller who occasionally sells used goods
Strict products liability under § 402A applies only to sellers engaged in the business of selling the product; a casual or occasional seller is not subject to strict liability.
Question 3: A plaintiff sues a drug company under strict products liability for a prescription drug that caused serious side effects. The drug carried appropriate warnings to physicians. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, the court will most likely:
- Hold the manufacturer strictly liable for failure to warn consumers directly
- Find the manufacturer's duty to warn was satisfied by warning the prescribing physician (Correct answer)
- Require the manufacturer to prove the plaintiff assumed the risk
- Apply negligence instead of strict liability to prescription drugs
Correct answer: Find the manufacturer's duty to warn was satisfied by warning the prescribing physician
Under the learned intermediary doctrine, a drug manufacturer fulfills its duty to warn by providing adequate warnings to the prescribing physician rather than directly to the patient.
Question 4: A consumer purchases a bottle of soda that explodes in her hand due to excessive carbonation pressure. She sues the bottler under strict liability. The bottler argues the bottle was inspected and met industry standards. This defense is:
- Valid, because meeting industry standards negates strict liability
- Invalid, because strict liability does not require proof of negligence (Correct answer)
- Valid, because the consumer assumed the risk of carbonated beverages
- Invalid, because the bottler failed to warn of explosion risks
Correct answer: Invalid, because strict liability does not require proof of negligence
Strict products liability does not require proof of negligence, so compliance with industry standards is not a complete defense.
Question 5: A child is injured by a toy that was safe for ages 8 and older but was marketed to children of all ages without age warnings. This is best characterized as a:
- Manufacturing defect
- Design defect
- Warning defect (failure to warn) (Correct answer)
- Breach of express warranty only
Correct answer: Warning defect (failure to warn)
Marketing a product to an inappropriate audience without adequate age-based warnings constitutes a failure-to-warn defect.
Question 6: Under strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, which element is NOT required?
- The activity creates a risk of serious harm
- The risk cannot be eliminated by reasonable care
- The defendant acted negligently in conducting the activity (Correct answer)
- The activity is inappropriate for the location where it is conducted
Correct answer: The defendant acted negligently in conducting the activity
Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities does not require negligence — liability attaches regardless of the care taken.
Question 7: A pet store sells a monkey that bites a customer a week after purchase. The customer sues under strict liability for wild animal ownership. The store argues the monkey had never bitten anyone before. This defense is:
- Valid under the one-bite rule which limits strict liability
- Invalid because strict liability applies to wild animals regardless of prior behavior (Correct answer)
- Valid if the store lacked knowledge of the monkey's dangerous propensity
- Invalid only if the monkey was classified as an inherently dangerous species
Correct answer: Invalid because strict liability applies to wild animals regardless of prior behavior
Strict liability for wild animal ownership does not require knowledge of prior dangerous behavior — the one-bite rule applies to domestic animals, not wild animals.
FYLSX Strict and Products Liability 2
A manufacturer sells a power saw with a blade guard that can be easily removed without tools.
A user removes the guard and is injured.
Under strict products liability, which factor most favors the manufacturer?