SOLVED

[Allergy Injuries] Drug company ABC Drugs introduced a new over-the-counter allergy pill guaranteed to prevent sneezing and sniffling for twenty-four hours after the consumption of one pill. The packaging contained warnings of the drug’s side effects, including nausea and headache. After it was initially put on the market, the company became aware of a risk of dizziness from the drug in people with high blood pressure. However, the company did not warn of the additional risk because the company was concerned that individuals might not buy the pill. The risk of dizziness for the average person was extremely low. Julia had suffered allergies for years and had tried nearly every new product on the market. She even maintained a blog called “Ask the Expert About Allergies.” She thought that ABC’s pill was a great idea and purchased it at her local convenient store. She purchased the product after the date the company became aware of the issues involving dizziness. She took one pill and felt fine for a few days. Then, however, she began feeling dizzy. Her dizziness caused her to fall and break her leg on a flight of steps. She later discovered that the allergy pill likely made her dizzy. Julia sued under state law alleging failure to warn of the dangerous side effect of the drug. The drug company claimed that it had no duty to list dizziness as a risk because it was an over-the-counter drug and the risk of dizziness to the average person was extremely rare. 61) With regard to Julia’s blog, what defense could the company claim? A) Misuse. B) State-of-the-art. C) Assumption of the risk. D) Statute of limitations. E) Sophisticated-user defense. 62) If the product packaging had contained a warning regarding dizziness in individuals with high blood pressure and Julia proceeded to take the drug despite its warning, what would be the company’s best defense? A) Statute of limitations. B) Misuse. C) State-of-the-art. D) Sophisticated user. E) Assumption of the risk. [Disappointing Boat Purchase] Ava went to purchase a new boat. She wanted a boat she could use in a nearby lake and also take to the coast for use in ocean waters. Ava saw a boat she liked in the showroom. She showed the boat to Brock, the sales representative at the dealership, and stated that she wanted a boat for both lake usage and ocean usage. Brock told her that the dealership had the best boats in the state, that the engine was great in the boat she liked, and that she would have no problem with steering or with the carburetor. He said nothing about whether or not the boat was an appropriate vessel for ocean waters. Ava purchased the boat. She immediately began to have significant problems with it. The engine did not perform adequately, and there were problems with the steering and carburetor. Additionally, Ava attempted to take the boat onto ocean waters and had significant difficulty. She later discovered that it was not an ocean-going vessel. It was only appropriate for lake usage. 63) Which of the following is true concerning Brock’s statement that the boats at the dealership were the best in the state? A) The statement established both a warranty of merchantability and a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, but not any other type of warranty. B) The statement constituted an express warranty but not any other type of warranty. C) The statement constituted a warranty of merchantability but not any other type of warranty. D) The statement was opinion and did not establish any type of warranty. E) The statement constituted an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose but not any other type of warranty. 64) Without taking into account any statements made by either the salesperson or Ava regarding uses for the boat, what type of warranty did the seller make by merely selling the boat? A) The sale itself constituted both an express warranty and an implied warranty of merchantability but not an express warranty. B) The sale itself constituted an implied warranty of merchantability but not an express warranty or a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. C) The sale itself constituted both an express warranty and a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose but not an implied warranty of merchantability. D) The sale itself constituted a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose but not an express warranty or an implied warranty of merchantability. E) The sale itself constituted an express warranty but not an implied warranty of merchantability or a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. 65) Which of the following is not a factor that a trial court may find helpful when balancing a product’s utility against the risk the product creates, as set forth in the text from the Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage case? A) the availability of a substitute product that would meet the same need and not be as unsafe B) the manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility C) the usefulness and desirability of the product D) the product’s design, look and feel E) the product’s safety aspects  Â