What remedy does Heidi have in this scenario?
- Heidi is entitled to recover her $8000 and any other damages she may be
able to prove, including compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages.
Cynthia orders 100 shirts priced at $4.99 each for her screenprinting business
from Juan, a shirt supplier. The shirts are supposed to be delivered within three
days, but they do not arrive, so Cynthia runs down to a local store during her
lunch break and buys another 100 shirts so that she can fill her customers’ orders
on time.
What remedy does Cynthia have in this scenario? - Cynthia can cancel her contract with Juan and recover the price she paid
for his shirts. Additionally, she can recover from Juan any money she paid for
shirts from the local store that exceeded her original contracted cost.
14
Cynthia orders 100 shirts in a variety of colors for her screenprinting business
from Juan, a shirt supplier. When Cynthia receives the shirts, she sees that they are
not the same brand that she ordered. Nevertheless, she accepts delivery. Within a
couple of weeks, Cynthia notices that the stitching on half of the shirts is
unraveling, rendering the shirts unsellable to her customers. She had no indication
that the shirts had defective stitching when she accepted delivery.
What remedy does Cynthia have in this scenario? - If Cynthia notified Juan of her acceptance of non-conforming goods, she
can recover what she paid for the shirts, since she will not be able to resell them.
Unit 2, Challenge 3
Unlike a crime, a tort __. - is governed by common law
Unlike a crime, a tort __. - is a wrong which has a legal remedy of damages
Unlike a crime, a tort __. - is a wrongdoing against a private individual
In an effort to boost sales, a small-scale clothing company prints an image of a
famous musician’s face on its new run of shirts.
Which type of intentional tort does this represent? - Invasion of privacy
A young women is walking home at night when a large man jumps out from behind
some bushes and verbally threatens her.
Which type of intentional tort does this represent? - Assault only
A hotel owner has a customer who refuses to pay his bill at the end of his stay. The
hotel owner gets very angry. He tells the customer that he may not leave without
paying, and if he tries to, the owner will sue him.
15
Which type of intentional tort does this represent? - This action does not rise to the level of an intentional tort.
A toddler spills a cup of juice on the floor of a grocery store. An employee sees the
spill, but he’s too busy to clean it up right away or mark it with a sign, and no one
else notices it. A few minutes later, a shopper slips on the juice and falls, but
fortunately, she’s not hurt and she continues her shopping.
Is the store liable for negligence if the shopper later sues? - Yes, but only if the shopper can demonstrate that she was actually injured.
A woman is driving down the road and sees two bicyclists crash into one another.
They are clearly hurt and in need of help, but because she is late for work, she
doesn’t stop.
Is the woman liable for negligence if one of the bicyclists later sues? - No, because no duty of care existed between the woman and the bicyclists.
A pharmaceutical company produces a drug to control blood pressure, but it’s
taken off the market after a number of consumers suffer strokes that some believe
are linked to the medication.
Is the pharmaceutical company liable for negligence in the case of a lawsuit? - Yes, but only if causation can be established.
A large hole in the sidewalk in front of a pet supply store is being repaired. A
customer trips on the hole when leaving the store and breaks her ankle. She sues
the store for negligence.
Assuming it is true, which of the following would represent at least a partial
defense against the negligence claim? - The store owner had placed a sign over the hole saying, “Caution, watch
your step.”
A man is in a car accident, and a woman who sees the accident rushes over to help
him. The man ends up with permanent partial paralysis resulting from the woman’s
care. The injured man later sues the woman for negligence.
Assuming it is true, which of the following would represent a strong defense
against the negligence claim?
16 - Although she was not medically trained or a first responder, the woman
was attempting to deliver first aid to the man.
A pedestrian walks into a crosswalk and is hit by a bicyclist and injured. The
pedestrian sues the bicyclist for negligence.
Assuming it is true, which of the following would represent at least a partial
defense against the negligence claim? - The pedestrian had headphones on, was busily engaged in texting, and did
not look up before entering the crosswalk.
Unit 2, Challenge 4
A bicycle rider falls and injures himself.
To successfully sue the bicycle manufacturer for strict liability, what would the
bicycle rider need to prove? - That the product design or manufacturing process was flawed in a way that
caused the fall
A truck carrying hazardous materials rolls over and spills chemicals, temporarily
polluting a town’s water supply.
To successfully sue the company for strict liability, what would the town need
to prove? - Nothing, because transporting hazardous materials is extremely dangerous
A mother with a sick child accidentally gives her child a fever reducer that is
meant for adults, rather than a fever reducer meant for children, because the
packaging of each is very similar. The child ends up in the hospital due to an
overdose.
To successfully sue the pharmaceutical company for strict liability, what
would the mother need to prove? - That mixing up the two medications as a result of their similar packaging
was a foreseeable customer misuse
Select the statement that is true of consumer law prior to the 20th century,
rather than current products liability law. - It followed the precept of “buyer beware.”
17
Select the statement that is true of current products liability law. - It developed as the processes of production and consumption were
increasingly separated.
Select the statement that is true of current products liability law. - It arose as consumers had much less direct contact with manufacturers than
in the past.
Carmen purchased a new lawnmower but she found it difficult to push it over her
uneven lawn. She removed one of the mower’s safety guards so that it would travel
more smoothly over the ground. Five weeks later, Carmen mowed the lawn and hit
a bump that overturned the mower, and she suffered an injury from the blade.
Carmen sues the manufacturer for negligence, arguing that the lawnmower had a
defective design that left operators exposed to injury in the case of overturning.
How strong is the negligence case against the product manufacturer? - Weak, because Carmen modified a safety feature of the mower prior to her
accident.
A 55-year-old woman begins a prescription medication for heart disease, and
accidentally overdoses because the medication interacts with a common, over the
counter drug the woman also takes on a regular basis. When the woman was given
her prescription, it came with a federally-mandated 10-page list of instructions
and warnings, which included a warning not to mix the prescription medication
with the over-the-counter drug. The woman sues the prescription drug maker for
negligence.
How strong is the negligence case against the product manufacturer? - Weak, because the manufacturer included a warning about the potential
danger of mixing the drugs
A laundry detergent company releases new, single use laundry detergent pods that
are brightly colored, wrapped in plastic, and look like small candies. After several
children ingest these laundry pods and require hospital care as a result, the
parents sue for negligence, alleging that the product is defective.
How strong is the negligence case against the product manufacturer? - Strong, because the detergent pods are designed in a way that make them
unreasonably unsafe.
18
Mark purchased a treadmill sold by a large department store and manufactured by
a third party. While Mark was using the treadmill, his 12-month-old infant crawled
by and caught his hand in the rear part of the treadmill, causing injury to the
infant’s hand and arm. There were no warnings of this potential for injury in any of
the treadmill’s instructions.
How strong of a case does Mark have against the department store for strict
product liability? - Strong, because the treadmill was unreasonably dangerous in normal use,
and there was a failure to warn of the danger to infants who might be near the
treadmill during operation.
A cologne manufacturer sold an alcohol-based cologne for men with a warning
limited to the potential for the cologne to catch fire if poured onto a source of
ignition. John purchased the cologne, applied it to his skin, and then immediately
lit a cigarette. The cigarette ignited the cologne on his skin, resulting in significant
burn injuries to his neck and shoulders.
How strong of a case does John have against the manufacturer for strict
product liability? - Strong, because the company’s warning did not include the potential to
start a fire on the consumer’s skin from a cigarette, and it would be foreseeable that
a consumer would light a cigarette after applying the cologne to his skin.
A manufacturer of an electrically operated muscle relaxer that sends pulses of
electrical current to the muscles sold this machine through Great Buy, a local
retail distributor. Sherry purchased one of these machines but did not read the
instruction booklet before her first use. The instruction booklet had appropriate
warnings about the danger of having the intensity control up too high and
counseled users to start out with the intensity on the lowest setting. Unfortunately,
Sherry started the machine with the intensity turned up to its highest setting,
causing violent convulsions of her arms and shoulders. Sherry suffered consequent
injuries to her shoulder joints from the incident.
How strong of a case does Sherry have against the manufacturer for strict
product liability? - Weak, because Sherry neglected to read the instruction booklet that would
have warned her against using the machine with the intensity up too high.
19
A motorcycle manufacturer was sued by Jeff for strict product liability for serious
leg injuries he incurred in a low speed motorcycle crash. The theory of recovery
was that the product was defective for failure to have leg protection devices
installed, making the product unreasonably dangerous. The manufacturer defended
on the basis of assumption of risk, in that the danger of a motorcycle crash is
obvious and foreseeable to the ordinary consumer, so Jeff assumed the risk of such
a crash.
How strong is the manufacturer’s defense against Jeff’s claim? - Strong, because the dangers of a motorcycle crash are obvious to the
ordinary consumer, and Jeff knew that there was no leg protection, making his legs
vulnerable to injury.
Jose sued an auto manufacturer exclusively for strict product liability when a
defect in his purchased automobile’s electrical lines caused a fire, leading to a
total loss of the vehicle. Jose did not suffer any personal injuries as a result of the
incident. The auto manufacturer defended the claim of strict product liability on
the basis that there were no personal injuries and the defect in the product only
resulted in economic loss to Jose.
How does Jose’s claim stand up to the manufacturer’s defense? - Jose is likely to lose, because economic loss relating only to the product
itself, as opposed to personal injuries, is not typically recoverable under strict
product liability.
A scaffold manufacturer was sued for strict product liability by Joe who, while
working on a construction project, had his scaffold collapse and cause severe back
injuries. The manufacturer defended on the basis of assumption of risk and was
able to prove that Joe knew that the scaffold was mis-rigged and decided to use it
despite this known fact.
How strong is the manufacturer’s defense against Joe’s claim? - Strong, as Joe was quite aware that the scaffold was mis-rigged with a
potential to collapse as a result and decided to use the mis-rigged scaffold with this
knowledge.
