FYLSX Strict and Products Liability 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A plaintiff is injured by a defective lawnmower. She cannot identify which of three manufacturers produced the specific unit because the serial number was destroyed in the accident. Under market share liability, the court will likely:
- Dismiss the case for failure to identify the defendant
- Hold all three manufacturers jointly and severally liable for 100%
- Apportion liability among defendants based on their market share (Correct answer)
- Require the plaintiff to prove which manufacturer made the product
Correct answer: Apportion liability among defendants based on their market share
Market share liability, developed in DES cases, allows apportionment among defendants based on their respective market shares when the plaintiff cannot identify the specific manufacturer.
Question 2: A plaintiff sues a retailer for strict products liability after being injured by a defective blender. The retailer argues it merely sold the product and had no role in the design or manufacture. Under strict products liability, the retailer is:
- Not liable because it did not cause the defect
- Liable because retailers in the distribution chain are strictly liable (Correct answer)
- Liable only if it knew of the defect before sale
- Not liable if it can identify the manufacturer for the plaintiff
Correct answer: Liable because retailers in the distribution chain are strictly liable
Under strict products liability, every seller in the commercial distribution chain — including retailers — can be held strictly liable regardless of fault.
Question 3: A homeowner uses dynamite to remove a tree stump and injures a neighbor. The neighbor sues under strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity. The homeowner argues blasting is common in the rural area. This argument:
- Eliminates strict liability because the activity is common locally
- Does not eliminate strict liability but may reduce damages
- Is one factor courts consider in assessing whether the activity is abnormally dangerous (Correct answer)
- Is irrelevant because dynamite use is abnormally dangerous as a matter of law everywhere
Correct answer: Is one factor courts consider in assessing whether the activity is abnormally dangerous
Whether an activity is inappropriate for the location is one of several factors courts weigh under the Restatement when assessing abnormal danger; local commonality may reduce the weight of this factor.
Question 4: A plaintiff claims a car's roof collapsed during a rollover accident that the manufacturer did not design for. The manufacturer argues the car was safe for normal use. Which type of defect claim is most appropriate?
- Manufacturing defect, because the specific car deviated from its design
- Warning defect, because consumers were not warned about rollover risks
- Design defect, because the entire product line lacks rollover protection (Correct answer)
- No defect, because manufacturers need not anticipate all accidents
Correct answer: Design defect, because the entire product line lacks rollover protection
When an entire product line lacks a safety feature that would reduce foreseeable risks (like rollover protection), the claim is for design defect.
Question 5: Under the consumer expectations test for design defect, liability is established when:
- The product's risks outweigh its utility using a cost-benefit analysis
- The product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect (Correct answer)
- The manufacturer knew of a safer alternative design that was feasible
- The product did not conform to applicable safety regulations
Correct answer: The product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect
The consumer expectations test holds a product defective in design when it fails to meet the safety expectations of the ordinary consumer.
Question 6: A bystander is injured when a defective car tire blows out and the car strikes him. He was not the purchaser or user of the car. Can he sue the tire manufacturer under strict products liability?
- No, because strict products liability requires privity of contract
- No, because he was not using the product when injured
- Yes, because strict products liability extends to bystanders foreseeably injured by the product (Correct answer)
- Yes, but only if he proves the manufacturer was negligent
Correct answer: Yes, because strict products liability extends to bystanders foreseeably injured by the product
Modern strict products liability has eliminated the privity requirement and extends protection to bystanders who are foreseeably injured by a defective product.
Question 7: A plaintiff successfully sues a manufacturer under strict products liability. The jury finds the plaintiff 30% comparatively at fault. In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, the plaintiff's recovery is:
- Barred entirely because the plaintiff contributed to the harm
- Reduced by 30% (Correct answer)
- Not reduced because comparative fault does not apply to strict liability
- Reduced only if the plaintiff's fault was greater than the defendant's
Correct answer: Reduced by 30%
Most jurisdictions apply comparative fault principles to strict products liability, reducing the plaintiff's recovery by their percentage of fault.
FYLSX Strict and Products Liability 3
A plaintiff is injured by a defective lawnmower.
She cannot identify which of three manufacturers produced the specific unit because the serial number was destroyed in the accident.
Under market share liability, the court will likely: