Question

2 pts Question 1 One of the advantages of suing in tort as opposed to contract for a products liability action is: In tort actions, the plaintiff need not have purchased the product. In tort actions, the plaintiff need not prove that the product is defective. In contract actions, the plaintiff must prove that personal Injury resulted from the use of defective product. In contract actions, the plaintiff must prove that the seller breached a duty of care. Question 2 2 pts If a product is inherently and obviously dangerous (example: power lawnmower): (2 point(s)) It is considered defective if no warning is provided even though the danger is well known. The seller has a duty to make it as safe as possible. It does not have to be designed to be as safe as possible as long as a sufficient warning is provided. The seller has a duty to make it as safe as possible and to warn of all known dangers not generally known.

Answer 1

Solution:

• Option B
  In tort actions, it is generally not necessary to prove that the product is defective. In suing by tort the advantage is that there has to be no proof to prove that the motive of suing is because of the "defects" in a product. Hence, Option B is correct.
  
• Option D
  It is the duty of the seller or manufacturer to ensure that the device is as safe as possible and all the necessary warnings related to the device are either pasted or printed on the device itself for safety purposes. Hence, the correct choice is option D.
  
• Option C
  It is the negligence towards the safety or due care of the product. If such due care would have been observed there would have very little instances of an accident with the user of the product. Hence, the correct choice is option C.