Torts Keyed to Epsteinback
0 of 4 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
A shopper shopped around for the lowest price on a new compact disc player. He decided to buy one from a very large dealer. The CD player is manufactured by a very reputable electronics manufacturer. Excited with his purchase, the shopper rushed home to use it. On the way home, the bus the shopper had taken was stuck in a terrible traffic jam for more than two hours. Luckily, the shopper had something to read, the CD player’s instruction manual, which he read carefully seven times. When he finally got home, the shopper carefully connected the CD player to his stereo. When he turned it on, he received severe burns on his right hand. The manufacturer had pointed the laser beams in the wrong direction, and this mistake caused the burns.
If the shopper brings suit against the manufacturer based on strict liability in tort, will the shopper recover?CorrectIncorrect
A consumer bit into a hamburger at a restaurant and cut her gum on a piece of bone in the meat. The bone was over an inch long. The consumer sued the meat processor in strict liability and negligence. At trial, she presented evidence that the processor supplied the ground beef that the restaurant used to make its hamburgers and that she was injured from the piece of bone in the meat. The meat processor presented evidence that restaurant employees prepared the hamburger patties by hand from the ground beef supplied by the processor, and asserted that one of the employees would have found the piece of bone had they made a reason able inspection of the meat while preparing it. At the close of the evidence, the meat processor moved for a directed verdict on the consumer’s negligence claim.
Based on the facts above, the court should:CorrectIncorrect
A homeowner purchased a lawnmower from a retail store. The mower had the following cautionary statement printed on it in large red letters: “Warning, this lawnmower has exposed blades. Keep children away. It can be very dangerous.” The homeowner left his mower outside on the lawn. He was about to mow the grass, but first he went inside his house to refresh himself with a drink of lemonade. The homeowner’s five-year-old son was curious about the inner workings of a lawn mower and stuck his hand inside the mower. The blades were whirring. Two fingers on the son’s right hand were severed and chopped up so badly that no surgeon could attempt to save them. A small piece of one bone was shot out of the mower, striking the son in his left eye and causing him a permanent partial loss of vision.
If a product liability suit is brought on the son’s behalf based on manufacturer’s strict liability, the son must establish that:CorrectIncorrect
The owner of a gardening service looking to purchase a lawnmower for his business asked a retailer if he would install a lightweight blade on a particular lawnmower that he liked, but which had a heavy-duty blade on it designed for cutting thick weeds. The retailer agreed and installed
a lightweight blade designed for lawn cutting, but the blade was not designed to be used on that style of lawnmower. Two weeks later, while a worker for the gardening service was using the lawnmower to cut through a patch of heavy weeds, the blade broke and a piece of it flew off the lawnmower and severely cut the worker’s leg. Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules.
If the worker asserts a claim based on strict liability in tort against the lightweight blade’s manufacturer, the strongest defense is:CorrectIncorrect