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.
An auto store buys wrecked cars, disassembles them for their parts, and rebuilds them. The auto store obtains most of his additional parts from junkyards, but he occasionally needs to buy new parts.
The owner of Housing Scheme Transport purchased a van that the auto store rebuilt from a wreck. The owner informed the auto store that the van’s snow tires were acceptable for her purposes because, though the treads were almost bare, the van was to be driven in a warm climate where it does not snow.
The auto store agreed to install four brand new radial tires purchased from a tire mark and manufactured by a tire manufacturer. The tire manufacturer had recently received an award from an association for its exemplary inspection procedures.
Two days after putting the van into service an employee of the Housing Scheme Transport, was involved in an accident with the van during which he sprained his right ankle. The van was fixed within two hours, but the employee was unable to drive for three days. The owner of the Housing Scheme Transport could not find another driver.
Assume that the trier of fact concluded that the accident was caused by the van’s front axle falling out. The owner of the Housing Transport Scheme brought a product liability action based on strict liability in tort against the auto store for her loss of income due to the employee’s injury. Will the owner of the Housing Transport Scheme prevail?CorrectIncorrect
A manufacturer makes a home coffee maker. A retailer purchased several hundred coffee makers under an arrangement whereby the retailer was responsible for shipping the merchandise from the manufacturer’s factory to his stores.
While loaded with coffee makers, one of the retailer’s trucks skidded on a highway and careened into a guardrail. The appliances were thrown about the truck, toward the front of the cargo area.
A consumer purchased a coffee maker from the retailer at a reduced price because the box was damaged. The consumer had no reason to assume the appliance inside was damaged as well. A guest at the consumer’s home turned on the coffee maker to make a cup of coffee in the morning. The machine exploded. The guest suffered third-degree burns on his face. The explosion was caused by a defect created in the truck’s accident.
Will the guest recover in an action against the retailer?CorrectIncorrect
A pilot took his friend for a ride in his private plane. A dense fog set in just before the plane took off, and the airport had been closed. The pilot took off anyway. The pilot was unmoved by the friend’s high-pitched screams. The pilot flew the plane, which was manufactured by a company, at speeds twice as fast as those at which the plane was designed to fly. The friend pointed out that the gauges indicated the plane was overheating, but the pilot called her a “party-pooper” and ignored her.
“The engine’s on fire,” screamed his friend. “Relax,” said the pilot, looking over his shoulder at the flaming engine. The pilot proceeded to make a perfect landing in the ocean, one mile from shore. The two climbed out of the cockpit and grabbed the two lifeboats that automatically inflated, and which were made by a manufacturing company and sold with the plane. The pilot and the friend climbed into the lifeboats and paddled away from the sinking plane. The friend’s boat had a manufacturing defect and, all of a sudden, sank. As the pilot was rowing over to let the friend climb into his lifeboat, a shark ripped off the friend’s left leg.
If the friend brings an action against the manufacturing company of the lifeboat, how will negligence on the part of the pilot affect the action?CorrectIncorrect
On a cold rainy day, a student was riding a bus to her home. The bus was owned by a private company. The windshield fogged up, limiting the driver’s visibility. The company had provided the driver with an extra-quick defogger, a new product it purchased from a retailer. The product, which contained a defogging chemical in an aerosol can, was manufactured by a manufacturing company. The driver carefully read the instructions, which said, “Danger, this product contains isopentanol, a chemical that is extremely toxic if swallowed. Keep out of the reach of children.”
Moments after the driver sprayed the defogger, the passengers began coughing. Many of them, including the student, suffered severe burns of the internal respiratory tract.
Isopentanol is a dangerous chemical extremely caustic to the outside layer of internal human membranes.
If the student asserts a claim against the retailer for injuries sustained, will she recover?CorrectIncorrect