Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
34. Do the injured building occupants have viable strict liability claims against the sand distributor?
Although the sand was not defective, the concrete forming the columns was defective because the mixture ratio of the sand, water, and cement was not proper. The defective concrete was a cause in fact of the collapse.
The construction company used the concrete to form supporting columns for a building. A year later, the building collapsed during a minor earthquake, causing injury to the occupants.
An experienced construction company purchased sand in bulk from a distributor. The construction company mixed the sand with water and cement to make concrete. The distributor knew that an improper ratio of sand, water, and cement would result in defective concrete, but the distributor played no role in determining the ratio used by the construction company in mixing the concrete.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. This answer choice states the correct conclusion using incorrect legal reasoning. A commercial seller of a component part can sometimes be strictly liable for an injury caused by a defective product into which the part is integrated.
C is incorrect. The fact that the columns were defective does not automatically render the distributor liable under the doctrine of strict products liability.
D is incorrect. The distributor is not liable for an injury caused by the defective concrete. The mere knowledge that the sand needed to be properly mixed with water and cement to make sound concrete is not sufficient to render the distributor liable.