In German product liability cases, consumers do not have a right to recover damages for pain and suffering or for emotional distress

A product may be found defective if a manufacturer fails to provide adequate warnings about potential dangers associated with the product. 
TRUE

A product may be defective if a manufacturer fails to provide adequate warnings about potential dangers associated with the product.

No duty to warn exists for dangers arising from either unforeseeable misuses of the product or from obvious dangers. 
TRUE

No duty to warn exists for dangers arising either from unforeseeable misuses of a product or from obvious dangers. A producer of razor blades, for example, need not give a warning that a razor blade may cut someone.

Arbitration committees are the preferred forum for settling product liability suits in Japan. 
TRUE

Arbitration committees are the preferred forum for settling a product liability dispute in Japan.

In German product liability cases, consumers do not have a right to recover damages for pain and suffering or for emotional distress. 
TRUE

In German product liability cases, consumers do not have a right to recover damages for pain and suffering or for emotional distress.

The lack of a feasible way to make a safer product always precludes product liability. 
FALSE

The state of scientific knowledge at the time of production, and the lack of a feasible way to make a safer product, does not always preclude liability. The court may find that the defendant's conduct was still unreasonable because even in its technologically safest form, the risks posed by the defect in the design so outweighed the benefits of the product that the reasonable person would not have produced a product of that design.

The statute of limitations is the same thing as the statute of repose. 
FALSE

Statutes of limitations limit the time within which all types of civil actions may be brought. Statutes of repose provide an additional statutory defense by barring actions arising more than a specified number of years after the product was purchased.

In order to proceed in a products liability action, a plaintiff must establish to a certainty that the product was not damaged after its purchase. 
FALSE

According to the court in Welge v. Planters Lifesaves Co., "The plaintiff in a product liability suit is not required to exclude every possibility, however fantastic or remote, that the defect which led to the accident was caused by someone other than one of the defendants."

A bystander can never invoke the doctrine of strict-liability in a lawsuit. 
FALSE

According to the court in James A. Peterson, Adm'r of the Estate of Maradean Peterson et al. v. Lou Backrodt Chevrolet Co., quoting, Elmore v. American Motors Corp., "If anything, bystanders should be entitled to greater protection than the consumer or user where injury to bystanders from the defect is reasonably foreseeable."

The state-of-the-art defense is not available in all states in strict liability cases. 
TRUE

One defense that may not be available in all states is the state-of-the-art defense. Courts have rejected the use of this defense in most strict-liability cases, reasoning that the issue in such cases is not what the producers knew at the time the products were produced but whether the product was defective and whether the defect caused it to be unreasonably dangerous.

Under the market share theory, a plaintiff may be able to recover in a products liability action even if the plaintiff cannot trace the harmful product to a particular manufacturer. 
TRUE

In Sindell v.Abbott Laboratories, which created the market share liability theory, the judge apportioned liability among the defendant-manufacturers on the basis of the share of the market they had held at the time that the drug had been produced.

Upon which type of law is product liability law primarily based? 
A. Contract law.
B. Tort law.
C. Administrative law.
D. Legislative law.
E. Executive law.

Product liability law is based primarily on tort law. There are three commonly used theories of recovery in product liability cases: negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty.