Tort strict liability questions

Which of the following are rationales for strict products liability?

Economic harm standing alone from a defective product is recoverable under which of the following legal theories?

Which case in the assigned reading for Module 24 held that circumstantial evidence, which is the crux of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, is applicable in both negligence and strict liability actions?

Which of the following product defects exist when a product departs from the manufacturer’s intended design and specifications?

What was the basis for the court’s rejection of a college student’s claim that the elevated bed from which he fell was defective in Mathews v. University Loft Co., 903 A.2d 1120 (N.J. App. 2006)?

The learned intermediary rule provides that in cases of prescription drugs, the manufacturer satisfies its duty to warn by providing an adequate warning to

Which case in the assigned reading for Module 24 held that the fact that a baking dish “exploded” when plaintiff removed it from the oven was not sufficient proof a defect that existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control because the explosion could have occurred due to subsequent damage to the dish after purchase?

In Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 822 P.2d 1292 (Cal. 1992), the court held that a plaintiff who swallowed a chicken bone contained in an enchilada may bring a claim based upon which of the following legal theories?

Which case in the assigned reading for Module 24 held that a product contains a defective design if either 1) it is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in the intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or 2) the benefits of the design do not outweigh the inherent risks?

Under which of the following tests do most courts place the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show that a reasonable alternative design for the product exists?

Which case in the assigned reading for Module 24 held that there is no strict liability cause of action for an unreasonably dangerous per se product?

Which provision of the Restatement Second provides qualified immunity from design defect claims for drugs and medical products on the grounds that those products are “quite incapable of being made safe in their intended and ordinary use?”

A 12 year case study of products liability claims in Franklin County, Ohio revealed which of the following findings?

In Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 170 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1999) in the assigned reading for Module 24 the plaintiff brought suit for personal injuries caused when his hand was caught in a meat grinder for which the safety guard had been removed. Which of the following best states the holding of the court on the duty to warn claim?

What doctrine helps a plaintiff establish causation in a failure to warn products liability case?

Which case in the assigned reading for Module 24 held that if a drug manufacturer advertises its prescription drugs directly to consumers, then the manufacturer cannot rely upon the learned intermediary rule as a defense to a failure to warn claim?

Which case in the assigned reading in Module 24 held that if there is no defect in a product at the time of manufacture, then there is no continuing duty to warn, repair, or recall even if post-manufacture evidence shows that safety devices later became available and were mandated by the regulating administrative agency?

With respect to defenses to strict products liability, most modern courts permit which of the following defenses?

Which of the following is correct regarding the admissibility of subsequent remedial efforts in product liability actions brought in federal courts applying Federal Rule of Evidence 407?

What governing standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courts did the U.S. Supreme Court state in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)?