SOLVED

[Squirt Gun Mishap] Marie decided to purchase a large squirt gun for her son, Alex, to use while playing in the pool. The squirt gun was of the very elaborate variety and had a number of different attachments for different sprays of water. The squirt gun came with instructions for assembly and use, and provided warnings against various types of misuse. The pamphlet that came with the squirt gun advised that the squirt gun should be used only under adult supervision, that it must not be used by children under 11 years old, and that nothing should be put into the squirt gun except water. Alex had a party for his tenth birthday at the pool. A number of children came. A guest, Sophie, age 10, decided to load pebbles along with water into the gun. She began shooting the gun and hit Rachel, another guest, in the eye, requiring treatment at an emergency room. Rachel required some minor surgery, but sustained no permanent injury. Rachel’s parents stated that they looked at the squirt gun when they initially arrived at the party, but did not notice any warnings affixed directly to the product. Rachel’s parents want to sue someone for something, but they do not particularly want to sue Marie, their friend and hostess of the party. 56) Which statement is true regarding a lawsuit brought by Rachel’s parents against the manufacturer of the squirt gun for negligence? A) Although privity of contract is not an issue, Rachel’s parents would be unable to prevail in an action against the manufacturer for negligence because they did not read the instruction booklet. B) Rachel’s parents would be prohibited from suing the manufacturer because of the federal law prohibiting lawsuits for failure to warn in cases involving children. C) Although privity of contract is not an issue, Rachel’s parents would be unable to prevail in a negligence action because Rachel did not sustain permanent physical injury. D) Privity of contract is not necessary in order to sue for negligence so the fact that neither Rachel nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller would not prevent a negligence-based action. E) Because neither Rachel nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller, no one other than Marie may be sued for negligence. 57) Which statement is true regarding a lawsuit brought by Rachel’s parents against the manufacturer of the squirt gun for strict liability? A) Although privity of contract is not an issue, Rachel’s parents would be unable to prevail in a strict liability action because Rachel did not sustain permanent physical injury. B) Rachel’s parents would be prohibited from suing the manufacturer because of the federal law prohibiting lawsuits for failure to warn in cases involving children. C) Although privity of contract is not an issue, Rachel’s parents would be unable to prevail in an action against the manufacturer for strict liability because they did not read the instruction booklet. D) Because neither Rachel nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller, a lawsuit based on strict liability in tort is barred. E) Privity of contract is not necessary in order to sue based on strict liability, so the fact that neither Rachel nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller would not prevent a strict liability-based action. 58) Which statement is true regarding warnings and the usage of products by children? A) Warnings are only required for minors above the age of twelve because it is assumed that children under that age will not be able to comprehend warnings. B) There is a duty to warn when children are involved, but it is no different from the duty to warn when only adults are expected to use a product. C) Warnings are only required for children whose parents actually purchased the product. D) Picture warnings could be required if children are likely come into contact with the product and risk harm from its use. E) There is no duty to warn when children are involved because it is assumed that parents are responsible. 59) Which statement is true regarding any assertion by Rachel’s parents that a warning should have been affixed to the product itself to warn adults as well as children? A) Most state laws provide that manufacturers are not required to affix warnings directly to a product. B) If parties other than the original purchasers will likely use the product, a warning should be placed directly on the product itself. C) Court cases hold that warnings on a product are not required so long as the purchaser is given an instructional pamphlet setting forth warnings. D) There is a federal law that provides that manufacturers are not required to affix warnings directly to a product. E) Rachel’s parents cannot complain because they did not purchase the squirt gun. [Allergy Injuries] Drug company ABC Drugs introduced a new over-the-counter allergy pill guaranteed to prevent sneezing and sniffling for twenty-four hours after the consumption of one pill. The packaging contained warnings of the drug’s side effects, including nausea and headache. After it was initially put on the market, the company became aware of a risk of dizziness from the drug in people with high blood pressure. However, the company did not warn of the additional risk because the company was concerned that individuals might not buy the pill. The risk of dizziness for the average person was extremely low. Julia had suffered allergies for years and had tried nearly every new product on the market. She even maintained a blog called “Ask the Expert About Allergies.” She thought that ABC’s pill was a great idea and purchased it at her local convenient store. She purchased the product after the date the company became aware of the issues involving dizziness. She took one pill and felt fine for a few days. Then, however, she began feeling dizzy. Her dizziness caused her to fall and break her leg on a flight of steps. She later discovered that the allergy pill likely made her dizzy. Julia sued under state law alleging failure to warn of the dangerous side effect of the drug. The drug company claimed that it had no duty to list dizziness as a risk because it was an over-the-counter drug and the risk of dizziness to the average person was extremely rare. 60) Is the company correct that it had no duty to warn of the risk of dizziness? A) Yes because it was an over-the-counter drug and the risk of dizziness to the average person was extremely low. B) Yes, because it was an over-the-counter drug. C) No, because the drug contained an ingredient which adversely affected some people with high blood pressure and the company knew or should have known about the risk to individuals with high blood pressure. D) No, but only if the plaintiff can show the drug adversely affected all individuals with high blood pressure and she was a member of that group. E) Yes. Although the company knew or should have known about the risk to individuals with high blood pressure, the drug was an over-the-counter drug and the company thus had no duty to protect every person in every situation. Â Â