As recognized by the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, which of the following is true regarding the consumer expectations test for product defect?

Which test for determining design defect is also referred to as the risk-utility test? 
A. The consumer expectations test.
B. The retailer expectations test.
C. The feasible alternatives test.
D. The design defects test.
E. None of the above.

Two different tests have evolved to determine when a product is so defective as to be unreasonably dangerous. The second is the feasible alternatives test, sometimes referred to as the risk-utility test. In applying this test, the court focuses on the usefulness and safety of the design and compares it to an alternative design.

As recognized by the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, which of the following is true regarding the consumer expectations test for product defect? 
A. If the plaintiff, applying the knowledge of an ordinary consumer, sees the danger and can appreciate that danger, then he cannot recover for any injury resulting from that appreciated danger.
B. That a plaintiff cannot recover if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger in fact of the product, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product.
C. That a plaintiff may only recover if the plaintiff was the purchaser of the product causing injury.
D. That a plaintiff may only recover if consumer oriented household goods are involved.
E. That a plaintiff may only recover if the plaintiff reasonably expected the manufacturer to have insurance.

According to the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, under the consumer expectations analysis, "for a plaintiff to recover, the defect in a product which causes his injuries must not be one which the plaintiff, as an ordinary consumer, would know to be unreasonably dangerous to him. In other words, if the plaintiff, applying the knowledge of an ordinary consumer, sees a danger and can appreciate that danger, then he cannot recover for any injury resulting from that appreciated danger."

As recognized by the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, which of the following is true under the risk-utility analysis of product liability? 
A. If the plaintiff, applying the knowledge of an ordinary consumer, sees a danger and can appreciate that danger, then he cannot recover for any injury resulting from that appreciated danger.
B. That a plaintiff must show that a retailer failed to do a proper risk-utility analysis before the plaintiff can recover against the retailer.
C. That a plaintiff must show that a manufacturer failed to do a proper risk-utility analysis before the plaintiff can recover against the manufacturer.
D. That a product is unreasonably dangerous if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of product.
E. That a reasonable person must conclude that the use-in-fact of a product outweighs the risk-utility of the product.

According to the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, "In a "risk-utility" analysis, a product is "unreasonably dangerous" if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product. Thus, even if a plaintiff appreciates the danger of a product, he can still recover for any injury resulting from the danger, provided that the utility of the product is outweighed by the danger that the product creates."

Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which of the following results in strict-liability? 
A. A manufacturing defect.
B. A design defect.
C. A failure to warn.
D. Both a manufacturing defect and a design defect.
E. A manufacturing defect, a design defect, and a failure to warn.

Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, it is only a manufacturing defect that results in strict liability.