Torts Products Liability

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Torts Products Liability

Postby estefanchanning » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:23 pm

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.
Last edited by estefanchanning on Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SomewhatLearnedHand

Bronze
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Torts Strict Liability

Postby SomewhatLearnedHand » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:26 pm

This falls under products liability fyi

Findedeux

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 7:10 pm

Re: Torts Strict Liability

Postby Findedeux » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:30 pm

I would have answered D as well b/c the question clearly says it's a negligence suit.

What's the right answer?

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: Torts Products Liability

Postby estefanchanning » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:32 pm

Sorry, corrected to Products liability (i'm studying product/strict liability rn)

the answer is C, but I don't understand how?

SomewhatLearnedHand

Bronze
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Torts Products Liability

Postby SomewhatLearnedHand » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:57 pm

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.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: Torts Products Liability

Postby estefanchanning » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:01 pm

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.

SomewhatLearnedHand

Bronze
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Torts Products Liability

Postby SomewhatLearnedHand » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:13 pm

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.


ahh missed that bit.

bpsb

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:51 pm

Re: Torts Products Liability

Postby bpsb » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:21 pm

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.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk

Gold
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: Torts Products Liability

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:15 pm

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.

Findedeux

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 7:10 pm

Re: Torts Products Liability

Postby Findedeux » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:55 am

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.


"To prevail against the snowmobile manufacturer"

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.

User avatar
Colonel_funkadunk

Gold
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:03 pm

Re: Torts Products Liability

Postby Colonel_funkadunk » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:49 pm

Findedeux wrote:
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.


"To prevail against the snowmobile manufacturer"

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.


I misread C and thought it said the snowmobile manufacturer, not component parts manufacturer, could have found the defect by exercising due care.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CLSGumbo, gasfard, wendykr and 83 guests