This is the controversial defense of: preemption 24. Air Corps, Inc., manufactures aviation guidance systems. Barb is injured in a crash causedby a defective Air Corps product. A statute restricts the time within which Barb may file aproduct liability suit against Air Corps regardless of when she was injured. This is a statute of: repose25. A statute of repose may limit the time within which a plaintiff can file a product liability suit. True26. Campbell Soup Co. manufactured, sold, and shipped packages of chicken-flavored Campbell's Ramen Noodle Soup to a distributor. The distributor sold and shipped the packages to Associated Grocers. Associated Grocers shipped the soup to Warehouse Foods, a retail grocer. Six weeks after Campbell first shipped the soup, Warehouse Foods sold a package of the soup to Kathy Jo Gates. Gates prepared the soup, and halfway through eating it, she discovered beetle larvae in the noodles. She suffered no ill effects from eating the soup. Nevertheless, she filed a lawsuit in an Arkansas state court against Campbell on a theory of strict product liability. The court most likely held that Campbell's was : not strictly liable, because Gates did not show that the soup was defective at the time it left the manufacturer.27. No danger associated with any product is so commonly known that a manufacturer doesnot need to warn users of it. False28. Sarah purchased a leather chair at a great price, but the catch was that she had to put it together. The instructions that came with the chair were written in the Korean language,but there were some diagrams. Sarah put the chair together following what she could make out of the instructions, but it collapsed when her boyfriend sat on it, and he was injured. If Sarah's boyfriend sues for his injury, what will be the basis of his cause of action? Inadequate instructions or warnings29. A court may consider a product so defective as to be an unreasonably dangerous product if: a less dangerous alternative is economically feasible but the manufacturer failed to produce it. the product is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer. the product is defective to the point of threatening a consumer's health and safety. (ALL) 30."If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald's, they cannot blame McDonald's if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate [satisfy] their appetite with a surfeit [excess] of supersized McDonald's products." This court opinion illustrates the defense of: knowledgeable user.Chapter 81.Suppose that when you enter an "On the Border" Mexican restaurant, you see a distinctive interior, a distinctive menu, and a wait staff wearing distinctive attire. This combination of things creates a unique ambience, known in legal terms as a: trade dress.