6781_Products_Liability_Sp07_Henderson

6781_Products_Liability_Sp07_Henderson - Exam. No. CORNELL...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Exam. No. CORNELL LAW SCHOOL Spring Term 2007 Final Examination PRODUCTS LIABILITY Thursday, May 10, 2007 Professor Henderson INSTRUCTIONS 1. This examination is closed book. During the examination, you may not consult any materials other than the exam itself and the copy of the black-letter of the Restatement, Third, of Torts: Products Liability (1998) provided with your copy of the exam. 2. The examination consists of three questions, for which you have a total of three hours. (The third question consists of five parts.) Answers will be weighted in proportion to the times suggested. 3. Assume that the jurisdictions in which events occurred apply pure comparative fault. Page 1 of 5 Pages
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
PRODUCTS LIABILITY Page 2 of 5 Pages Professor Henderson I (50 minutes) The state Supreme Court Justice for whom you serve as law clerk wants your reactions to a products liability case that is before your Court on interlocutory appeal. The plaintiff, Pam Parker, brought a wrongful death action against M, Inc., the manufacturer, and R, Inc., the retailer, of a butane gas fireplace lighter that Pam had purchased one week before a house fire killed her daughter, Jenna. On the night of the fire Pam, a single mother, had left three year-old Jenna with a teenage babysitter while she, Pam, went out with friends. The babysitter fell asleep, Jenna found and ignited the lighter, and the lighter set fire to the house. Jenna died in the fire. In Pam's action against M and R, she alleges that the lighter was defectively designed and that the defendants failed adequately to warn of the danger that an unsupervised child might ignite the lighter and harm herself and others. Regarding the design claim, your state follows the Barker/Soule line of decisions from California, under which the plaintiff may rely on either a consumer expectations standard or a RAD- based risk-utility standard in establishing defective design. In Pam's case, the trial judge denied defendants' motions for summary judgment on both the design and warning claims, ruling that they should proceed to trial. On interlocutory appeal, the intermediate court of appeals affirmed. In connection with the design claims against M and R, the intermediate appellate court held
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This test prep was uploaded on 02/20/2008 for the course LAW 6811 taught by Professor Shapiro during the Fall '04 term at Cornell.

Page1 / 5

6781_Products_Liability_Sp07_Henderson - Exam. No. CORNELL...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online