SOLVED

[Scissors Injury] Yvonne bought a new pair of large-sized, extra-sharp scissors made by CutCo at her local store, BuyStuff. At the time of purchase, Yvonne noticed that the packaging was torn. The clerk offered her a discount because of the damage. When Yvonne tried to open the package containing the scissors at home, she found the hard plastic packaging was difficult to open. Her roommate, Gwen, handed her a knife to cut the packaging. While Yvonne was cutting, the hard plastic sliced her finger, causing her to drop the package. When the package fell, the scissors fell out of the package onto Yvonne’s toe. Gwen then picked up the scissors and ran to call an ambulance. Unfortunately, she tripped and fell while running with the scissor blades facing up, and was stabbed in the stomach. Yvonne and Gwen each suffered injuries and sued CutCo and BuyStuff, alleging strict product liability. 81) BuyStuff’s attorney wants to file a motion to dismiss, claiming that BuyStuff is not the manufacturer and cannot be held liable for the injuries. Is BuyStuff’s attorney correct? A) No, because a retailer cannot be held liable under the strict product liability theory. B) Yes, a retailer may be held liable under strict product liability. C) No, because strict product liability focuses on the actions of the manufacturer in producing the product. D) Yes, but only if BuyStuff holds a substantial share of the market. E) No, because BuyStuff did not manufacture the product. 82) Gwen believes her lawsuit will be successful because there was no warning label on the scissors. Is she correct? A) No, because no duty to warn exists for dangers arising either from unforeseeable misuses of a product or from obvious dangers. B) Yes, under the bystander theory. C) Yes, because the scissor did not warn of the hazards of running with scissors. D) Yes, because the warning should have at least contained a picture warning. E) Yes, because CutCo should have known that without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use. 83) Cutco believes it is not liable under the state-of-the-art defense. Is Cutco likely to be correct? A) Yes, if CutCo can prove its behavior was reasonable, given the available scientific knowledge existing at the time the product was sold or produced. B) Yes, if Cutco can prove it was not technologically feasible to produce a safe product at the time the product was produced. C) No, the state-of-the-art defense is not available in most strict liability cases. D) No, if the plaintiffs can prove CutCo’s behavior was unreasonable. E) Yes, if CutCo can prove the benefits of the product outweighed the risks posed by the defect in the product design. 84) What must Yvonne prove to succeed in a strict-liability action? A) The product was unreasonably dangerous and caused her injury. B) The product was defective, unreasonably dangerous, and caused her injury. C) The defendant’s negligence caused her injury. D) The product was defective, failed to contain warnings, was unreasonably dangerous, and caused her injury. E) The product was defective when sold, the product was unreasonably dangerous, and the product caused her injury. 85) What must a plaintiff show to establish a claim for breach of express warranty? A) The representation was the basis of the bargain and the breach was the defendant’s fault. B) The representation was the basis of the bargain and there was a breach of the representation. C) There was a breach of the representation and the breach was the defendant’s fault. D) The representation was the basis of the bargain, there was a breach of the representation, and the defendant’s negligence caused her injury. E) The representation was the basis of the bargain, there was a breach of the representation, and the breach was the defendant’s fault. Â Â