What was the ruling of the court in the case of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., the case in which the plaintiff injured his hand when a jar containing peanuts broke?

Which of the following do courts focus on when a strict product liability action is involved? 
A. Whether the product was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous when sold.
B. Whether the manufacturer was negligent.
C. Whether the seller exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product.
D. Whether the consumer had a contractual relationship with the seller.
E. Whether the manufacturer knew of a problem with the product.

With strict products liability, the actions of the manufacturer or seller are not relevant; rather, strict product liability focuses on the product. Thus, duty is irrelevant. Courts focus on whether the product was in a "defective condition, unreasonably dangerous" when sold.

How do plaintiffs usually prove that a defect exists in a product? 
A. Only though expert testimony.
B. Only through evidence of circumstances surrounding the accident that would lead the jury to infer that the accident must have been caused by a defect in the product.
C. Only through testimony of a purchaser of the product.
D. Only through testimony of an injured party.
E. Through expert testimony and/or evidence of the circumstances surrounding the accident that would lead the jury to infer that the accident must have been caused by a defect in the product.

Plaintiffs usually prove that a defect exists by means of (1) experts who testify as to the type of flaw in the product that led to the plaintiff's injury and/or (2) evidence of the circumstances surrounding the accident that would lead the jury to infer that the accident must have been caused by a defect in the product.

What was the ruling of the court in the case of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., the case in which the plaintiff injured his hand when a jar containing peanuts broke? 
A. That the case would be dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish that the jar was maintained in a pristine condition after its purchase.
B. That the plaintiff was unable to recover because negligence in manufacture of the jar could not be established.
C. That the plaintiff was unable to recover because he was not the actual purchaser of the jar of peanuts.
D. That the plaintiff would be allowed to proceed because negligence was established.
E. That the plaintiff would be allowed to proceed with the lawsuit because of a lack of evidence that the jar had been damaged after its purchase.

According to the court, "Here we know to a virtual certainty (always assuming that the plaintiff's evidence is believed, which is a matter for the jury) that the accident was not due to mishandling after purchase, but to a defect that had been introduced earlier."

Which of the following is true regarding proof of design defect? 
A. States are not in agreement as to how to establish a design defect.
B. State law across the country is generally uniform regarding how to establish a design defect.
C. State law is irrelevant because federal law dictates how to establish a design defect.
D. Each local county in each state determines how a design defect will be established.
E. Because of the amount of international trade, there are international treaties establishing for each U.S. state how design defects will be established.

It is sometimes difficult to prove that a design is defective. States are not in agreement as to how to establish a design defect.

Which of the following is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts as a method by which to prove a design defect? 
A. The risk-utility test.
B. The consumer expectations test.
C. The feasible alternatives test.
D. The design defect test.
E. The consumer propensity test.

Two different tests have evolved to determine when a product is so defective as to be unreasonably dangerous. The first test, set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, is the consumer expectations test: Did the product meet the standards that would be expected by the reasonable consumer?