16. In this action, an issue that is relevant to the case and is a question for the court to decide as a matter of law, rather than for the jury to decide as a question of fact, is whether

Generally, the judge decides questions of law and the jury decides questions of fact. A question of law is a determination by the court regarding the application or interpretation of a law or a determination of what the relevant law is. A question of fact is a determination by the trier of fact (in a jury trial, the jury, and in a bench trial, the judge) that is made by weighing the strength of evidence and credibility of witnesses, or the resolution of a factual dispute or controversy.

A products liability claim may be brought by a plaintiff under multiple different theories: (i) intent; (ii) negligence; (iii) strict liability; (iv) implied warranties; and (v) express warranties. The prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability includes: (i) a commercial supplier of a product; (ii) producing or selling a defective product; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. There are three ways for a product to be defective: the product has (i) a manufacturing defect; (ii) a design defect; or (iii) defects with the instructions and warnings.

The plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.

A product may be held to be defective and unreasonably dangerous partially because it does not carry an adequate warning. The duty to warn is essentially an extra obligation placed on manufacturers and retailers; a product that has no design or manufacturing defects may still be found to be defective because it does not have warnings required for its safe use.

B is correct. Remember, this question asks what the court must decide on as a matter of LAW before the case goes to the jury on matters of FACT. In a duty to warn strict liability action, if the defendant can show that it neither knew nor, even in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, of a particular danger at the time of sale, the vast majority of courts hold that there is no duty to warn of an unknowable danger.

The issue remaining in this question is on reasonable care: whether the asbestos company had a duty to know and warn of their product's dangers at the time of the plaintiff's injury. What constitutes «reasonable care» is not a question of fact for the jury to determine. Determining a reasonable person standard is a legal question, which the judge must consider.

A is incorrect. The judge would not need to evaluate whether a satisfactory, safer, alternative insulation material exists under today's technology. Not only is this a question of fact, and not a question of law, but it is also irrelevant to the facts at issue, which deal with technologies and knowledge in existence in the 1950's and 1960's.

C is incorrect. A judge would not decide as a matter of law whether the asbestos company knew or should have reasonably known of the danger before 1966. As explained above, this is clearly a question of fact and is only appropriate for the jury to consider.

D is incorrect. A judge would not decide whether asbestos is inherently dangerous as a matter of law. As explained above, this is a question of fact. Judges may only rule on questions of law. Questions of fact belong to the jury.