Question 1

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective case-assessment memorandum analyzing strict products-liability theories against the pressure washer manufacturer and retailer. Address manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, causation, defenses, damages, and the immediate matter-management steps.

Accepted Answer

A strong memorandum should identify the manufacturing-defect theory as presently the most developed because the engineer's report (Exhibit 1) attributes the hose split to improper curing. It should treat design and warning theories as plausible but dependent on additional expert analysis concerning risk reduction, causation, feasibility, and warning prominence under Authority 1. The retailer's lack of knowledge (Exhibit 2) does not remove it from the distribution chain under Authority 2. Nair's failure to perform the manual's test (Exhibit 3) may support comparative responsibility, but it does not automatically establish unforeseeable misuse or superseding causation. The immediate recommendation should emphasize preservation, party notice, and a controlled testing protocol before any destructive examination. [Practice more Torts questions on Oncourse]

Question 2

Accepted Answer

***The defamation claim turns on Moss’s factual accusations, their truth, and whether a conditional privilege was lost.***
- Saying Park was **dismissed** is demonstrably false because Park resigned; saying Park **falsified reports** is disputed because the audit did not resolve whether the score differences were intentional.
- The parent’s request may support a **conditional privilege**, but Moss’s knowledge that Park resigned may defeat it; “I would not trust Jordan with a child” may also imply defamatory facts rather than express pure opinion.

***The medical disclosure and withdrawn offer raise separate publicity and damages questions.***
- Park’s anxiety treatment was **truthful private information**, but Authority 2 requires publicity beyond a small group; investigate whether the parent distributed the leave form further than the tutoring-company director.
- The withdrawn **$52,000** offer supports economic loss linked to the publication, while punitive damages require sufficiently culpable or malicious conduct.

**Traps in this case**

*Treating an accurate diagnosis as sufficient for a private-facts claim*
- Accuracy does not defeat that claim, but disclosure to Moss’s limited email recipients and one forwarded recipient does not, without more, establish **publicity** under Authority 2.

*Assuming the audit proved intentional falsification*
- The three score discrepancies warrant investigation, but Park’s retesting explanation means BrightPath had **not established intent**.

*Repeating the diagnosis in a correction*
- BrightPath should preserve the audit, emails, forwarding information, and hiring communication, then correct the resignation and unestablished falsification claims **without redisclosing** Park’s diagnosis. [Practice more Torts questions on Oncourse]

Question 3

Accepted Answer

***The puddle’s duration and the missed inspection support constructive notice, not proof of actual notice.***
- The Manager Email places the leak at **7:10 a.m.** and the fall at 7:43, with no recorded 7:30 inspection; under Authority 1, a reasonable inspection may have discovered the growing puddle.
- No evidence establishes that an employee personally saw the water, but the absence of a warning cone supports breach; the driver’s attention to the counter may raise **comparative responsibility** without eliminating the center’s duty.

***Preserve the evidence promptly, then assess causation and supported damages.***
- Identify the recording systems and relevant records, request preservation of video, inspection logs, and maintenance records before footage is overwritten, interview the assigned employee, and update the assessment.
- Under Authority 2, the passerby’s attempt to prevent a head injury is a foreseeable response to the slip; the Damages Summary supports **$24,600** in bills and wages, while future therapy needs a cost estimate and the delayed follow-up warrants mitigation inquiry.

**Traps in this case**

*Treating the passerby’s pull as automatically breaking causation*
- A foreseeable rescue attempt that worsens the shoulder injury does not ordinarily sever proximate cause under Authority 2.

*Using the driver’s familiarity with the walkway to defeat her claim*
- Prior use does not show that she knew of this puddle, although looking toward the counter may bear on comparative responsibility.

*Including every listed expense in the demand*
- The **$1,100** vehicle repair arose from an unrelated earlier collision, not the transit-center fall. [Practice more Torts questions on Oncourse]

Question 4

Accepted Answer

***The false headline and courthouse post must be separated from the article’s accurate reporting of two corrected sanitation citations.***
- Under Authority 1, the citations are protected by **substantial truth**, but the records do not support the headline’s claim that contaminated food was served for months.
- The courthouse caption falsely implies that Voss faced a criminal food-tampering case; its public distribution also provides substantial support for a **false-light** claim under Authority 2.

***The prepublication warning and missing source notes are central to fault, while damages require careful attribution.***
- Voss emailed Chen official reports contradicting the headline before publication, so counsel should preserve publication versions and communications, then locate Chen’s notes and examine her review of those reports when assessing fault and possible enhanced damages.
- Counsel should verify the Draft Correction against the records before publishing it, then answer the Demand Letter without conceding that the accurate citation reporting was false.

**Traps in this case**

*Treating every lost sale as caused by a false statement*
- The customer avoided the restaurant after reading the **accurate citations**, whereas the supplier canceled after reading the false courthouse post.

*Treating the supplier’s reliance as Voss’s fraud claim*
- Authority 2 requires **Voss’s own justified reliance**; the supplier’s reliance cannot satisfy that element.

*Accepting every demand in the Demand Letter*
- The records support neither an admission that **every statement** was false nor a claim that the restaurant **never received a citation**. [Practice more Torts questions on Oncourse]

Question 5

Accepted Answer

***The strongest initial theory is a manufacturing defect in this blender, while both MixPro and FreshWay remain potential defendants.***
- The Manufacturer Email identifies a required **locking washer** and sensor interruptions during this unit’s production shift; inspection must determine whether the washer is missing and whether the unit was altered after production.
- Under Authority 1, FreshWay’s lack of negligence does not eliminate a commercial retailer’s potential strict liability, and Reed’s status as a **bystander** does not defeat recovery.

***Preserve the appliance before testing the suspected defect.***
- Send preservation notices and keep the evidence secured; then inventory and photograph the blender, packaging, manual, and separated components retained in the Incident Report.
- Arrange a documented **joint nondestructive inspection** with appropriate experts, and agree on a written protocol before any destructive examination.

**Traps in this case**

*Treating one separation as proof of a design or warning defect*
- Authority 1 distinguishes a unit’s departure from its intended design from a defect in the design itself, and the current evidence points to a possible missing washer rather than an inadequate warning.

*Treating no prior reports as a defense*
- MixPro’s approximately **18,000** sales without a reported separation do not establish whether this particular unit had its required washer.

*Treating the rattle as assumption of risk*
- The Interview Note says Reed mistook the sound for ice and did not know of a loose part, so it does not establish that he knowingly encountered a known defect. [Practice more Torts questions on Oncourse]

Torts Questions

Topics

Intentional torts

Negligence

Strict liability

Nuisance

Products liability

Misrepresentation, defamation and privacy

Damages

About Torts Questions