BLAW 3310 Exam 2 LEE UTA Questions And
Answers 100% Correct
PROBLEM WITH PRODUCT LIABILITY often, the person who bought product didn't
buy from manufacturer (ex. cars at dealership - MacPherson v. Buick Motor)
CASE: MACPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR case that deals with product liability that
said consumer can sue the maker of a product directly - wooden spokes with crack - Buick was
charged with NEGLIGENCE because, even though they didn't make the wheel, they could have
inspected it.
CASE: BAXTER V. FORD MOTOR Ford said windshield would never break. it did, and
put Baxter's eye out.
Interference with contractual relations This is a business tort, when a wrongdoer
intentionally causes another party to break a good contract, the motive does not matter. The point
is that breaking the contract is done to benefit the tortfeasor. This causes injury to the party who
suffers the breach of contract. The party who suffers the breach may sue both the party who
breached the contract for breach and the wrongdoer for the tort of interference with contract.
, BLAW 3310 Exam 2 LEE UTA Questions And
Answers 100% Correct
CASE: GREENMAN V. YUBA POWER 1st case to deals with strict liability of
manufacturer of a product. Greenman's wife bought him a saw. Saw was defective - threw board
at his head.
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCT DEFECT a product: contains a manufacturing defect; is
defective by design; defective because of inadequate instructions/warnings
failure to warn consumers of dangers in the use of a product, or to instruct consumers
about proper procedures in using a product, has long been actionable. This applies where the
manufacturer knows of a danger caused by the product's use that cannot be prevented entirely,
but about which users could be warned. For example, lawn mowers now routinely have warning
labels telling users not to try to unclog blocked grass discharge chutes while the mower is
running.
design defect Cases are not concerned with a product that has been poorly manufactured
and causes an injury. Rather, such cases focus on the determination of whether an injury to users
could have been prevented by designing the product differently.
, BLAW 3310 Exam 2 LEE UTA Questions And
Answers 100% Correct
STRICT LIABILITY BASED ON EXPRESS WARRANTY (BAXTER V. FORD MOTOR)
when a product specifically doesn't live up to its warranty, anyone who handled the
product is liable (Baxter v. Ford Motor: Ford has express warranty that says windshield will
never break... it does and puts Baxter's eye out. Baxter successfully sues.)
STATUTORY LIMITS ON LIABILITY: GOVERNMENTS HAVE LAWS THAT TRY TO
LIMIT LIABILITY (1)Worker compensation statutes usually make that program the
exclusive remedy for injured workers, unless an intentional tort was involved.
(2)Federal regulations that prescribe maximum allowable radiation exposure levels set the
standard of care upon which liability is based.
(3)As government contractors, manufacturers of products made to government specifications are
generally immune from product liability.
(4)Products that must follow federal regulations regarding label requirements, including
warnings of possible injuries, may not be subject to common-law failure-to-warn actions. Such
defenses are limited.
(5)State laws may specify limits on liability, such as Colorado's statutory limits on the liability
of ski resorts for injuries suffered by skiers.
Answers 100% Correct
PROBLEM WITH PRODUCT LIABILITY often, the person who bought product didn't
buy from manufacturer (ex. cars at dealership - MacPherson v. Buick Motor)
CASE: MACPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR case that deals with product liability that
said consumer can sue the maker of a product directly - wooden spokes with crack - Buick was
charged with NEGLIGENCE because, even though they didn't make the wheel, they could have
inspected it.
CASE: BAXTER V. FORD MOTOR Ford said windshield would never break. it did, and
put Baxter's eye out.
Interference with contractual relations This is a business tort, when a wrongdoer
intentionally causes another party to break a good contract, the motive does not matter. The point
is that breaking the contract is done to benefit the tortfeasor. This causes injury to the party who
suffers the breach of contract. The party who suffers the breach may sue both the party who
breached the contract for breach and the wrongdoer for the tort of interference with contract.
, BLAW 3310 Exam 2 LEE UTA Questions And
Answers 100% Correct
CASE: GREENMAN V. YUBA POWER 1st case to deals with strict liability of
manufacturer of a product. Greenman's wife bought him a saw. Saw was defective - threw board
at his head.
CATEGORIES OF PRODUCT DEFECT a product: contains a manufacturing defect; is
defective by design; defective because of inadequate instructions/warnings
failure to warn consumers of dangers in the use of a product, or to instruct consumers
about proper procedures in using a product, has long been actionable. This applies where the
manufacturer knows of a danger caused by the product's use that cannot be prevented entirely,
but about which users could be warned. For example, lawn mowers now routinely have warning
labels telling users not to try to unclog blocked grass discharge chutes while the mower is
running.
design defect Cases are not concerned with a product that has been poorly manufactured
and causes an injury. Rather, such cases focus on the determination of whether an injury to users
could have been prevented by designing the product differently.
, BLAW 3310 Exam 2 LEE UTA Questions And
Answers 100% Correct
STRICT LIABILITY BASED ON EXPRESS WARRANTY (BAXTER V. FORD MOTOR)
when a product specifically doesn't live up to its warranty, anyone who handled the
product is liable (Baxter v. Ford Motor: Ford has express warranty that says windshield will
never break... it does and puts Baxter's eye out. Baxter successfully sues.)
STATUTORY LIMITS ON LIABILITY: GOVERNMENTS HAVE LAWS THAT TRY TO
LIMIT LIABILITY (1)Worker compensation statutes usually make that program the
exclusive remedy for injured workers, unless an intentional tort was involved.
(2)Federal regulations that prescribe maximum allowable radiation exposure levels set the
standard of care upon which liability is based.
(3)As government contractors, manufacturers of products made to government specifications are
generally immune from product liability.
(4)Products that must follow federal regulations regarding label requirements, including
warnings of possible injuries, may not be subject to common-law failure-to-warn actions. Such
defenses are limited.
(5)State laws may specify limits on liability, such as Colorado's statutory limits on the liability
of ski resorts for injuries suffered by skiers.
