Question The United States District Court had diversity of citizenship

14 Jun Question The United States District Court had diversity of citizenship

Question
The United States District Court had diversity of citizenship subject matter jurisdiction over Dayton Hudson, the defendant in Ms. Hollister’s lawsuit.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 2

1 pts

Given the facts presented above, Ms. Hollister likely did not have a claim of product liability based on express warranty against Dayton Hudson.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 3

1 pts

The fact that Ms. Hollister was intoxicated at the time her shirt came in contact with the burner of her stove, causing the fire leading to her injuries, is relevant and likely would completely prevent Ms. Hollister from winning the lawsuit against Dayton Hudson.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 4

1 pts

Given the facts presented above, Ms. Hollister may have been able to make a claim of product liability based on a claim of breach of implied warranty against Dayton Hudson.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 5

1 pts

Under the standards of product liability law, Dayton-Hudson was not responsible for Ms. Hollister’s injuries because it did not manufacture the shirt, and instead, purchased the shirt from a manufacturer to sell to its retail customers.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 6

1 pts

In order to prove her legal claim against Dayton Hudson, Ms. Hollister would need to find evidence to show her shirt was defective because it was made of a fabric (rayon) that burned faster than shirts made of other fabrics (e.g., a rayon-polyester blend, flannel, or cotton).

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 7

1 pts

In reviewing Ms. Hollister’s lawsuit on appeal from the district court’s decision granting Dayton Hudson’s motion for summary judgment, and the claim that Ms. Hollister’s shirt was dangerous because of a defective design (i.e., the type of fabric the shirt was made of) it was important that Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determine the shirt would have been less flammable had it been made of a different and safer fabric.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 8

1 pts

Dayton Hudson had a legal duty to warn Ms. Hollister about the extreme flammability of her shirt because it was foreseeable that Ms. Hollister might wear the shirt in the kitchen of her apartment and that her shirt may come in contact with the burners of her stove in the course of cooking.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 9

1 pts

The fact that the type of shirt Ms. Hollister wore immediately ignited and burned completely when coming in contact with the burner of a stove, particularly compared to other types of shirts made of different fabrics, was an important part of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that Dayton Hudson had a duty to warn its customers that this type of shirt was extremely flammable.

True

False

Flag this Question

Question 10

1 pts

Because Dayton Hudson failed to warn Ms. Hollister about the extreme flammability of her shirt, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals most likely found the shirt to be defective, based on a failure to warn, and reversed the district court’s decision.

True

False