Torts Products Liability Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm
Torts Products Liability
A plaintiff was injured when the steering mechanism of a snowmobile failed. He brought a negligence action against the snowmobile manufacturer. The steering mechanism was designed and manufactured by a component manufacturer; the snowmobile manufacturer merely assembled the snowmobile, branded it, and distributed it directly to retailers. To prevail against the snowmobile manufacturer, what will the plaintiff need to prove?
(A) That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users.
(B) That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users, and the plaintiff was the purchaser of the snowmobile, a member of the purchaser’s family, or a guest of the purchaser.
(C) That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users, and the defect could have been discovered and corrected if the component manufacturer had exercised reasonable care in its quality control process.
(D) That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users, and the snowmobile manufacturer failed to inspect the mechanism before assembly of the snowmobile.
Is this question erroneous? I feel that all the answer choices are wrong. The "correct" answer per my guide is C, but I feel that's wrong because how would the component manufacturer's negligence affect the snowmobile manufacturer? I chose D because it seems the least wrong out of all of them.
(A) That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users.
(B) That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users, and the plaintiff was the purchaser of the snowmobile, a member of the purchaser’s family, or a guest of the purchaser.
(C) That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users, and the defect could have been discovered and corrected if the component manufacturer had exercised reasonable care in its quality control process.
(D) That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users, and the snowmobile manufacturer failed to inspect the mechanism before assembly of the snowmobile.
Is this question erroneous? I feel that all the answer choices are wrong. The "correct" answer per my guide is C, but I feel that's wrong because how would the component manufacturer's negligence affect the snowmobile manufacturer? I chose D because it seems the least wrong out of all of them.
Last edited by estefanchanning on Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm
Re: Torts Strict Liability
This falls under products liability fyi
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 7:10 pm
Re: Torts Strict Liability
I would have answered D as well b/c the question clearly says it's a negligence suit.
What's the right answer?
What's the right answer?
-
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm
Re: Torts Products Liability
Sorry, corrected to Products liability (i'm studying product/strict liability rn)
the answer is C, but I don't understand how?
the answer is C, but I don't understand how?
-
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm
Re: Torts Products Liability
I would have to consult my torts outline because I haven't looked at this shit in two years but this is straight out of the products liability case lines for manufacturer/seller liability. Seems like the issue is youre thinking about it from a traditional negligence sense. Because its strict liability, if there is a legit defect (of course there are the several other elements) then there will be liability for manufacturer AND the seller.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm
Re: Torts Products Liability
SomewhatLearnedHand wrote:I would have to consult my torts outline because I haven't looked at this shit in two years but this is straight out of the products liability case lines for manufacturer/seller liability. Seems like the issue is youre thinking about it from a traditional negligence sense. Because its strict liability, if there is a legit defect (of course there are the several other elements) then there will be liability for manufacturer AND the seller.
The question says "He brought a negligence action against the snowmobile manufacturer."
But you're totally right if this was strict liability.
-
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm
Re: Torts Products Liability
ahh missed that bit.estefanchanning wrote:SomewhatLearnedHand wrote:I would have to consult my torts outline because I haven't looked at this shit in two years but this is straight out of the products liability case lines for manufacturer/seller liability. Seems like the issue is youre thinking about it from a traditional negligence sense. Because its strict liability, if there is a legit defect (of course there are the several other elements) then there will be liability for manufacturer AND the seller.
The question says "He brought a negligence action against the snowmobile manufacturer."
But you're totally right if this was strict liability.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:51 pm
Re: Torts Products Liability
So I did a little digging, because I remembered seeing this question and not quite understanding it but just moving on at the time. According to Barbri's explanation of that question, "a commercial supplier who assembles a product from components manufactured by others is subject to the same liability as the manufacturer of the defective component." Their full outline gives the language of the rule as "a retailer who labels a product as the retailer's own or assembles a product from the components manufactured by others is liable for the negligence of the actual manufacturer, even through the retailer is not personally negligent." The terminology of "retailer" in the outline seems a little confusing as applied to this question, but basically because the snowmobile manufacturer "assembled the snowmobile, branded it, and distributed it directly to retailers," that makes it liable for the component manufacturer's negligence. It's not strict liability because you still have to prove negligence, just not the snowmobile manufacturer's negligence.
- Colonel_funkadunk
- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm
Re: Torts Products Liability
C is right if its negligence.
Negligence is looking at the lowest cost avoider. The suit doesn't say it was brought against the components part manufacturer. The answer C says If they exercised reasonable care then the defect could have been corrected. The snowmobile manufacturer has a duty of care, So if C is proven they breached that duty of care by not having adequate quality control.
D is not correct. It says they failed to inspect, but there is nowhere that says an inspection could have fixed the problem. If this couldnt have been fixed through an inspection, than just proving they didn't inspect the snowmobile wouldn't prove negligence.
Negligence is looking at the lowest cost avoider. The suit doesn't say it was brought against the components part manufacturer. The answer C says If they exercised reasonable care then the defect could have been corrected. The snowmobile manufacturer has a duty of care, So if C is proven they breached that duty of care by not having adequate quality control.
D is not correct. It says they failed to inspect, but there is nowhere that says an inspection could have fixed the problem. If this couldnt have been fixed through an inspection, than just proving they didn't inspect the snowmobile wouldn't prove negligence.
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 7:10 pm
Re: Torts Products Liability
"To prevail against the snowmobile manufacturer"Colonel_funkadunk wrote:C is right if its negligence.
Negligence is looking at the lowest cost avoider. The suit doesn't say it was brought against the components part manufacturer. The answer C says If they exercised reasonable care then the defect could have been corrected. The snowmobile manufacturer has a duty of care, So if C is proven they breached that duty of care by not having adequate quality control.
D is not correct. It says they failed to inspect, but there is nowhere that says an inspection could have fixed the problem. If this couldnt have been fixed through an inspection, than just proving they didn't inspect the snowmobile wouldn't prove negligence.
Based on the above language, I think it would be a common-sense inference that the snowmobile manufacturer has been sued.
C addresses the manufacturer's negligence and you would have to make the pretty big assumption that because the manufacturer could have caught the problem during its quality control so too could the snowmobile manufacturer.
Maybe C is the right answer but I don't think this question is either clear or well written.
- Colonel_funkadunk
- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm
Re: Torts Products Liability
I misread C and thought it said the snowmobile manufacturer, not component parts manufacturer, could have found the defect by exercising due care.Findedeux wrote:"To prevail against the snowmobile manufacturer"Colonel_funkadunk wrote:C is right if its negligence.
Negligence is looking at the lowest cost avoider. The suit doesn't say it was brought against the components part manufacturer. The answer C says If they exercised reasonable care then the defect could have been corrected. The snowmobile manufacturer has a duty of care, So if C is proven they breached that duty of care by not having adequate quality control.
D is not correct. It says they failed to inspect, but there is nowhere that says an inspection could have fixed the problem. If this couldnt have been fixed through an inspection, than just proving they didn't inspect the snowmobile wouldn't prove negligence.
Based on the above language, I think it would be a common-sense inference that the snowmobile manufacturer has been sued.
C addresses the manufacturer's negligence and you would have to make the pretty big assumption that because the manufacturer could have caught the problem during its quality control so too could the snowmobile manufacturer.
Maybe C is the right answer but I don't think this question is either clear or well written.
-
- Posts: 428465
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Torts Products Liability
Reviving this thread because I came across this question during a practice test and had the exact same struggle as OP. How does answer choice (C) account for the SNOWMOBILE manufacturer's duty and breach of duty? Since this is a negligence action and not strict liability, wouldn't plaintiff have to show the SNOWMOBILE manufacturer had a duty and breached a duty (ie. duty to reasonably inspect or something like that)?
I don't understand why an upstream COMPONENT manufacturer's breach of duty would be impliedly/automatically imparted onto a downstream manufacturer in a NEGLIGENCE action, unless we are getting into some huge implicit res ipsa assumption... Or, if my struggle with this question is unfounded, can someone please explain to me how the theory of products liability negligence differs from traditional negligence so that the answer choice makes sense? I would greatly appreciate it!
I don't understand why an upstream COMPONENT manufacturer's breach of duty would be impliedly/automatically imparted onto a downstream manufacturer in a NEGLIGENCE action, unless we are getting into some huge implicit res ipsa assumption... Or, if my struggle with this question is unfounded, can someone please explain to me how the theory of products liability negligence differs from traditional negligence so that the answer choice makes sense? I would greatly appreciate it!
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login