A defendant may be able to limit liability for injuries caused by a defective product by showing that a plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the injuries.

Recharge Corporation makes batteries. Sol is injured when the Recharge battery in his phone bursts into flame. In Sol’s product liability suit against the maker, alleging a design defect, the court may consider

A defective product is an unreasonably dangerous product when it is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer.

Touch Screens Inc. makes and markets tablets. When problems develop with Touch products or sales, the company may be liable in product liability for any of the following except

A manufacturer does not need to inspect and test any purchased components used in the final product to avoid product liability.

Soda Bubbles Corporation makes soft drinks. Toby drinks a Soda beverage, which proves defective and injures him. One justification for holding Soda strictly liable for the harm caused to Toby is that

A product made in conformity with a manufacturer’s design specifications is not considered defective regardless of a flaw in the design.

A seller who introduces into commerce an unreasonably dangerous product may be subject to a tort action for strict liability.

DIY-Haul, Inc., makes, sells, and leases hauling equipment for consumer use. Ed files a product liability suit against DIY-Haul, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider

Under the doctrine of strict liability, persons are liable only for the results of their intentional acts or their failure to exercise due care.

Steps & Rungs Inc. makes ladders. Ty discovers that his Steps & Rungs ladder is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on strict liability. To win, Ty must show that

Product misuse is recognized as a defense to a claim for product liability only when the particular misuse was reasonably foreseeable.

Insulate Inc. makes and sells fire-retardant building materials. In a product liability suit against Insulate, a court would use a risk-utility analysis of the company’s product as designed to determine whether

Under the doctrine of strict liability, a defendant’s liability depends on privity of contract.

In deciding a claim of design defect, a court can consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of an alternative design for a product.

Do-It-Rite Inc. makes and markets tools. Evan uses a Do-It-Rite power screwdriver to scrape grout—a purpose for which it was not intended—and is injured when the tool slips. Evan files a product liability suit against the maker. The defendant’s best defense is most likely

Those who do not make goods, but only sell or lease them, cannot be held liable for harm caused by those goods to a consumer.

Stan, an air conditioning and heating technician, files suit against Temp-Set Corporation, alleging that its thermostats are unreasonably dangerous due to the possibility of electrical shock while being installed. Temp-Set’s best defense is most likely

Ceramic Corporation makes commercial ceramic products, including heat-resistant tiles for industrial ovens. When damage occurs in an oven at Duramold Inc., strict product liability may be imposed on Ceramic if the tiles sold to Duramold were

Opal is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Plank Company-made ceiling beam. At the time, Opal is not wearing any safety gear. In Opal’s product liability suit against Plank, the company can most successfully raise the defense of

Holding defendants strictly liable for manufacturing defects encourages greater investment in product safety.

A product will be considered defective when the omission of reasonable warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.

The explosive demolition of a rock formation by Mountain Blasters Inc. injures Noh, who is hiking on a nearby slope. Under the doctrine of strict liability, Mountain Blasters must pay for Noh’s injury

In a product liability suit based on a design defect, a manufacturer is liable only when the harm was not reasonably preventable.

Overland Corporation makes trucks. The brakes on Pho’s Overland truck malfunction, but he continues to drive it. Unable to slow down, the truck crashes through a guardrail and careens off the road. In Pho’s product liability suit against Overland, the defendant can assert the defense of