1. A bridge's design is defective as well as soon after completion it begins to sway in the wind. Everyone stays off, except Carl, who wants to show off. Carl falls from the bridge as well as sues its maker, who can increase the defence of
1. Commonly known danger.
2. Product misuse.
3. Assumption of risk.
4. None of the choices.

2. Kitchen Products, Inc. (KPI) makes knifes as well as other utensils. Jay is injured while using a KPI knife as well as sues the maker for product liability based on negligence. KPI might successfully defend against the suit by showing that
1. The knife wasn't altered after KPI sold it.
2. KPI didn't sell the knife to Jay.
3. Jay abused the knife in a foreseeable way.
4. Jay's injury caused from a commonly known danger.

3. Standard Tools Inc makes as well as sells tools. Tina is injured as a result of utilizing a Standard tool. Tina litigates Standard for product liability based on strict liability. To succeed Tina must evidence that Standard
1) None of the choices.
2) Misrepresented a material fact regarding the tool on which Tina relied.
3) Was in privet of contract with Tina.
4) Did not use care with respect to the tool?

4. Yard Work Inc makes as well as sells garden tools. Under the Restatement Second of Torts a tool could be unreasonably dangerous
1) Only if in making the tool, Yard Work failed to use a less dangerous but economically feasible alternative.
2) None of these choices.
3) If, in making the tool, Yard Work failed to use a less dangerous but economically feasible alternative or if the tool is dangerous beyond the ordinary consumer's expectation.
4) Only if the tool is dangerous beyond the ordinary consumer's expectation.

5. Fiona is in Glen's Grocery Store while a bottle of Hi Cola on a nearby shelf explodes, injuring her. She can convalesce from the manufacturer of Hi Cola only if she can show that
1) She did not assume the risk of the explosive bottle of Hi Cola.
2) She was injured due to a defect in the product.
3) The manufacturer failed to use due care in making the bottle of Hi Cola.
4) She intended to buy the explosive bottle of Hi Cola.

6. Video Inc designs as well as manufacturers DVD players. In a product liability ensemble based on negligence, Video could be accountable for violating its duty of care with respect to a player's
1) Design only.
2) Neither design nor manufacture.
3) Design or manufacture.
4) Manufacture only.

7. Gears Inc makes bicycles. Hope is hurt while riding a Gears bike as well as files a suit against the maker for product liability based on misrepresentation. To succeed Hope need show that
1) Hope did not abuse or misuse the bike.
2) Gears did not use due care with respect to making the bike.
3) Gears misrepresented a material fact regarding the bike, on which Hope relied.
4) Hope was in privet of contract with Gears.

8. Implosive Mining Company involves in blasting operations. This is subject to firm liability because
1) Blasting is a negligent activity.
2) Implosive is a mining company.
3) Blasting is a dangerous activity.
4) Mining can be done without blasting.

9. Roadway Construction Inc uses dynamite in its projects. Sven stocks household chemicals in the garage. Most likely accountable for any injury caused by an abnormally dangerous activity is
1) Roadway only.
2) Neither Roadway nor Sven.
3) Roadway and Sven.
4) Sven only.

10. Cliff owns Destruction Corporation (DC) a demolition company. A demolition by a DC crew hurts Eli, a passer-by. Under the doctrine of severe liability Cliff must pay for Eli's injury
1) Only if Eli's injury was reasonably foreseeable.
2) Only if the DC crew was at fault.
3) Only if Eli's injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
4) Whether or not the DC crew was at fault