TRY ME!
Duty Of Reasonable Care
Summary
A duty of reasonable care is owed to anyone foreseeably harmed, not just those in privity. Puffing is expected exaggeration, not a warranty. In strict liability, rental companies can be liable as sellers. Misuse is a defense if the product was used improperly. Main causes in product liability include negligence and breach of warranties. Privity involves direct contractual relationships. Survival actions continue the decedents claim. Mass torts include product liability and toxic torts. Defenses in wrongful death include contributory negligence.Full Conversation
A duty of reasonable care is owed only to those in privity with the defendant.
Question * options:
True
False
The statement is False.
A duty of reasonable care is generally owed to anyone who could foreseeably be harmed by the defendant's actions, not just those in privity with the defendant.
A duty of reasonable care is generally owed to anyone who could foreseeably be harmed by the defendant's actions, not just those in privity with the defendant.
Puffing is unexpected exaggeration of quality.
Question * options:
True
False
The statement is True. Puffing is indeed an exaggeration of the quality of a product, often expected and not considered a legally binding representation.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
In a strict liability in tort case, someone who rents products in a business might be considered a seller.
Question * options:
True
False
The statement is True.
In a strict liability in tort case, courts may consider someone who rents products in a business as a seller because they are engaged in the business of providing goods to consumers. This can make them liable for any defects in the products they rent out.
Do you need any more information on strict liability cases?
In a strict liability in tort case, courts may consider someone who rents products in a business as a seller because they are engaged in the business of providing goods to consumers. This can make them liable for any defects in the products they rent out.
Do you need any more information on strict liability cases?
Misuse is a defense to strict liability in tort (SLIT) when the product was used in an improper manner that was neither intended nor foreseeable
Question * options:
True
False
Case Rating: *
The statement is True. Misuse of a product can be a defense to strict liability in tort when the product was used in a manner that was neither intended by the manufacturer nor foreseeable. This could relieve the manufacturer from liability.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
The statement is True. Misuse of a product can be a defense to strict liability in tort when the product was used in a manner that was neither intended by the manufacturer nor foreseeable. This could relieve the manufacturer from liability.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
What are main causes of action in a products liability case?
Question * options:
*)
negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and strict liability in tort
*)
negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and strict liability in tort
*)
negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and strict liability in tort
*)
negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, strict liability in tort, and conversion
Case Rating: *
The main causes of action in a products liability case typically include:
- Negligence
- Breach of express warranty
- Breach of implied warranty of merchantability
- Breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
- Strict liability in tort
Based on the given options, the correct answer is:
Option *: Negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and strict liability in tort.
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification?
The main causes of action in a products liability case typically include:
- Negligence
- Breach of express warranty
- Breach of implied warranty of merchantability
- Breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
- Strict liability in tort
Based on the given options, the correct answer is:
Option *: Negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and strict liability in tort.
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification?
Tom is a passenger in a car made by the Ford Motor company, which Ted purchased from the Richardson Ford dealership. While in the car, Tom and Ted are injured in an accident on the way to a party.
Question * options:
*)
Tom is in privity with Ted, but not with Richardson Ford.
*)
Ted is in privity with Ford Motor Company, but not with Tom.
*)
Ted is in privity with Richardson Ford, but not with Ford Motor Company.
*)
Tom is in privity with Richardson Ford, but not with Ford Motor Company.
Case Rating: *
Given the scenario, here are some relevant points regarding privity in the context of this case:
- Privity generally refers to a direct relationship between the parties involved in a contract.
- Ted, who purchased the car from Richardson Ford, is in privity with Richardson Ford.
- Tom, as a passenger, does not have a direct contractual relationship with Richardson Ford or Ford Motor Company.
Based on this information, the most accurate option is:
*) Tom is in privity with Ted, but not with Richardson Ford.
Would you like more information on this topic or have other legal questions?
Given the scenario, here are some relevant points regarding privity in the context of this case:
- Privity generally refers to a direct relationship between the parties involved in a contract.
- Ted, who purchased the car from Richardson Ford, is in privity with Richardson Ford.
- Tom, as a passenger, does not have a direct contractual relationship with Richardson Ford or Ford Motor Company.
Based on this information, the most accurate option is:
*) Tom is in privity with Ted, but not with Richardson Ford.
Would you like more information on this topic or have other legal questions?
Len is a salesman at Warren Appliances. He tells Helen, a customer, that the washing machine she is considering is A-* quality. She buys it. A week later, when using the washing machine, a part on the machine flew out at her, injuring her eye. Which is true?
Question * options:
*)
Len's statement that the machine was A-* quality was an express warranty.
*)
Len's statement that the washing machine was A-* quality created a warranty of merchantability.
*)
Helen was justified in relying on Len's statement that the machine was A-* quality.
*)
Len's statement that the machine was A-* quality was puffing.
Case Rating: *
Helen's situation involves potential issues of product liability and breach of warranty.
Here's the relevant information:
- Len's statement that the washing machine was "A-* quality" was likely puffing (exaggerated sales talk) and not an express warranty (Option *).
- However, there could still be a case for strict liability or breach of implied warranty if the product was defective and caused injury.
Would you like more detailed information on product liability laws in New Mexico?
Helen's situation involves potential issues of product liability and breach of warranty.
Here's the relevant information:
- Len's statement that the washing machine was "A-* quality" was likely puffing (exaggerated sales talk) and not an express warranty (Option *).
- However, there could still be a case for strict liability or breach of implied warranty if the product was defective and caused injury.
Would you like more detailed information on product liability laws in New Mexico?
Tort Law: What are the three categories of defects in products liability cases?
Case Rating: *
The three categories of defects in products liability cases are:
- Manufacturing Defects: Flaws occur during the manufacturing process.
- Design Defects: The product design is inherently unsafe.
- Warning Defects: Failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions.
Do you need more information or have another question?
The three categories of defects in products liability cases are:
- Manufacturing Defects: Flaws occur during the manufacturing process.
- Design Defects: The product design is inherently unsafe.
- Warning Defects: Failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions.
Do you need more information or have another question?
A mass tort is a separate cause of action.
Question * options:
True
False
Case Rating: *
False. A mass tort is not a separate cause of action; it's a type of legal action involving numerous plaintiffs against one or a few defendants in state or federal court. It's often used for cases involving large-scale disasters, defective products, or widespread harm.
Do you need any more information on tort laws or have another legal question?
False. A mass tort is not a separate cause of action; it's a type of legal action involving numerous plaintiffs against one or a few defendants in state or federal court. It's often used for cases involving large-scale disasters, defective products, or widespread harm.
Do you need any more information on tort laws or have another legal question?
Most in-person, live telephone, and real-time electronic solicitation is unethical unless the attorney is not seeking fees or other financial gain or already has a professional or family relationship with the prospective client.
Question * options:
True
False
Case Rating: *
The statement about in-person, live telephone, and real-time electronic solicitation being unethical is generally true. Most professional conduct rules prohibit this type of solicitation unless certain exceptions apply, such as not seeking financial gain or having a pre-existing relationship with the client.
Would you like to know more about the ethical rules for attorney solicitation in New Mexico?
The statement about in-person, live telephone, and real-time electronic solicitation being unethical is generally true. Most professional conduct rules prohibit this type of solicitation unless certain exceptions apply, such as not seeking financial gain or having a pre-existing relationship with the client.
Would you like to know more about the ethical rules for attorney solicitation in New Mexico?
Tort Law: Most in-person, live telephone, and real-time electronic solicitation is unethical unless the attorney is not seeking fees or other financial gain or already has a professional or family relationship with the prospective client.
Question * options:
True
False
Case Rating: *
True. In-person, live telephone, and real-time electronic solicitation by attorneys is generally considered unethical unless the attorney is not seeking fees or other financial gain, or if there's a pre-existing professional or family relationship with the prospective client.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on tort law?
True. In-person, live telephone, and real-time electronic solicitation by attorneys is generally considered unethical unless the attorney is not seeking fees or other financial gain, or if there's a pre-existing professional or family relationship with the prospective client.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on tort law?
Tort Law: Wrongful death is any death caused by a tort or other wrong.
Question * options:
True
False
Case Rating: *
True, wrongful death is a death caused by a tort or other wrongful act. This can include negligence, intentional harm, or strict liability.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
True, wrongful death is a death caused by a tort or other wrongful act. This can include negligence, intentional harm, or strict liability.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
Tort Law: All tort actions today survive the death of the victim or alleged tortfeasor.
Question * options:
True
False
Case Rating: *
The statement "All tort actions today survive the death of the victim or alleged tortfeasor" is generally True. Under modern laws, most tort actions do survive the death of either party. This means that the estate of the deceased can continue to pursue or defend against the tort claim.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
The statement "All tort actions today survive the death of the victim or alleged tortfeasor" is generally True. Under modern laws, most tort actions do survive the death of either party. This means that the estate of the deceased can continue to pursue or defend against the tort claim.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
Tort Law: In a tort action that survives the death of the victim (from a cause other than the commission of that tort), the survived action is a new and independent action from the one the decedent would have had if he or she had survived.
Question * options:
True
False
Case Rating: *
The statement "In a tort action that survives the death of the victim (from a cause other than the commission of that tort), the survived action is a new and independent action from the one the decedent would have had if he or she had survived" is generally False. The action is typically considered a continuation of the decedent's original claim, not a new and independent one.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on tort law?
The statement "In a tort action that survives the death of the victim (from a cause other than the commission of that tort), the survived action is a new and independent action from the one the decedent would have had if he or she had survived" is generally False. The action is typically considered a continuation of the decedent's original claim, not a new and independent one.
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on tort law?
Tort Law: A survival action
Question * options:
*)
is a new or independent action to recover what the decedent would have recovered if he or she had not died
*)
is an action brought on behalf of a decedent against a defendant (who did not cause the death of the decedent) to recover for the losses suffered by the survivors due to the death
*)
is an action brought by the estate of the decedent against a defendant to recover what thedecedent would have recovered if he or she had not died
*)
is an action that has been expanded to include the wrongful death
Case Rating: *
A survival action is generally described as:
- An action brought by the estate of the decedent against a defendant to recover what the decedent would have recovered if he or she had not died (Option *).
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
A survival action is generally described as:
- An action brought by the estate of the decedent against a defendant to recover what the decedent would have recovered if he or she had not died (Option *).
Do you have any other legal questions or need further clarification on this topic?
What are the four major kinds of mass torts?
Case Rating: *
The four major kinds of mass torts are:
- Product Liability Torts: Involving defective or dangerous products.
- Pharmaceutical Torts: Relating to harmful drugs or medical devices.
- Toxic Torts: Involving exposure to hazardous chemicals or substances.
- Disaster Torts: Pertaining to large-scale accidents or environmental disasters.
Do you need further information on any of these types?
The four major kinds of mass torts are:
- Product Liability Torts: Involving defective or dangerous products.
- Pharmaceutical Torts: Relating to harmful drugs or medical devices.
- Toxic Torts: Involving exposure to hazardous chemicals or substances.
- Disaster Torts: Pertaining to large-scale accidents or environmental disasters.
Do you need further information on any of these types?
Tort Law: What defenses can be raised in a wrongful-death action?
Case Rating: *
In a wrongful death action, several defenses can be raised, including:
- Contributory Negligence: If the deceased's own negligence contributed to the death.
- Comparative Negligence: Liability may be apportioned based on the degree of fault.
- Assumption of Risk: If the deceased knowingly assumed the risk of a dangerous activity.
- Consent: If the deceased consented to the act that caused the death.
Do you need any more information on wrongful death defenses or have another legal question?
In a wrongful death action, several defenses can be raised, including:
- Contributory Negligence: If the deceased's own negligence contributed to the death.
- Comparative Negligence: Liability may be apportioned based on the degree of fault.
- Assumption of Risk: If the deceased knowingly assumed the risk of a dangerous activity.
- Consent: If the deceased consented to the act that caused the death.
Do you need any more information on wrongful death defenses or have another legal question?
Under modern statutory law, what personal property torts and what real property torts survivewhen death is not caused by those torts?
Case Rating: *
In New Mexico, the following personal and real property torts generally survive the death of the victim or tortfeasor:
In New Mexico, the following personal and real property torts generally survive the death of the victim or tortfeasor:
Personal Property Torts:
- Conversion
- Trespass to Chattels
- Conversion
- Trespass to Chattels
Real Property Torts:
- Trespass to Land
- Nuisance
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this topic?
- Trespass to Land
- Nuisance
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this topic?
Under modern statutory law, what personal property torts and what real property torts survive when death is not caused by those torts?
Case Rating: *
In New Mexico, the following personal and real property torts generally survive the death of the victim or tortfeasor:
Personal Property Torts:
- Conversion
- Trespass to Chattels
Real Property Torts:
- Trespass to Land
- Nuisance
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this topic?
In New Mexico, the following personal and real property torts generally survive the death of the victim or tortfeasor:
Personal Property Torts:
- Conversion
- Trespass to Chattels
Real Property Torts:
- Trespass to Land
- Nuisance
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this topic?
For the fact situation presented below find the New Mexico case on point and brief the case on the issue relating to Products Liability-Strict Liability. The fact situation is based on facts from a New Mexico civil case (I have changed the names of the parties). The case may be located by consulting NM One Source. The case must be read a number of times in order to be properly briefed.
Products Liability - Strict Liability: The plaintiffs rented a car from a rental company. The tire had a blowout, and the plaintiff and another passenger were injured. The plaintiffs wish to sue the car rental company under the theory of strict liability in torts.
Case Rating: *
In a products liability-strict liability case in New Mexico, the following points are generally considered:
- Strict Liability: The manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a product can be held liable if the product is defective and causes injury, regardless of whether the defendant acted negligently.
- Defects: The defect could be in manufacturing, design, or a failure to warn.
- Rental Companies: Courts may consider rental companies as "sellers" under strict liability because they are in the business of providing products to consumers.
For your exact case, you would need to refer to specific New Mexico case law that aligns with these facts. Consulting NM One Source for relevant case studies will be essential.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case?
In a products liability-strict liability case in New Mexico, the following points are generally considered:
- Strict Liability: The manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a product can be held liable if the product is defective and causes injury, regardless of whether the defendant acted negligently.
- Defects: The defect could be in manufacturing, design, or a failure to warn.
- Rental Companies: Courts may consider rental companies as "sellers" under strict liability because they are in the business of providing products to consumers.
For your exact case, you would need to refer to specific New Mexico case law that aligns with these facts. Consulting NM One Source for relevant case studies will be essential.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case?
Full case brief on STANG V. HERTZ CORP., *-NMCA-*, * N.M. *, * P.2d * (Ct. App. *)
Case Rating: *
Case Brief: Stang v. Hertz Corp., *-NMCA-*
Facts:
- Plaintiffs rented a car from Hertz Corporation.
- The tire blew out, resulting in injuries to the plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs sued Hertz under strict liability in tort.
Issue:
- Can a car rental company be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defect in one of its rental cars?
Holding:
- Yes, the court held that a car rental company can be considered a "seller" for purposes of strict liability.
Reasoning:
- The court reasoned that rental companies are in the business of providing products (cars) to consumers, similar to sellers in traditional sales transactions.
- Therefore, they bear responsibility for ensuring the safety of those products.
Outcome:
- The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing that rental companies could be held strictly liable for defects in their rental vehicles.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case or any additional legal questions?
Facts:
- Plaintiffs rented a car from Hertz Corporation.
- The tire blew out, resulting in injuries to the plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs sued Hertz under strict liability in tort.
Issue:
- Can a car rental company be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defect in one of its rental cars?
Holding:
- Yes, the court held that a car rental company can be considered a "seller" for purposes of strict liability.
Reasoning:
- The court reasoned that rental companies are in the business of providing products (cars) to consumers, similar to sellers in traditional sales transactions.
- Therefore, they bear responsibility for ensuring the safety of those products.
Outcome:
- The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing that rental companies could be held strictly liable for defects in their rental vehicles.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case or any additional legal questions?
The parties for case.
Case Rating: *
It seems like you're involved in a products liability case. Here are key points:
- Strict Liability: Manufacturers, distributors, or sellers can be held liable if their product is defective and causes injury.
- Defects: Defects can be in manufacturing, design, or a failure to warn.
- Rental Companies: They can be considered "sellers" and held liable for defects in their rental products.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case?
It seems like you're involved in a products liability case. Here are key points:
- Strict Liability: Manufacturers, distributors, or sellers can be held liable if their product is defective and causes injury.
- Defects: Defects can be in manufacturing, design, or a failure to warn.
- Rental Companies: They can be considered "sellers" and held liable for defects in their rental products.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case?
All parties for case STANG V. HERTZ CORP., *-NMCA-*, * N.M. *, * P.2d * (Ct. App. *)
Case Rating: *
Parties in the Case:
- Plaintiffs: The individuals who rented the car and were injured.
- Defendant: Hertz Corporation, the car rental company.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with a products liability case or have any other legal questions?
- Plaintiffs: The individuals who rented the car and were injured.
- Defendant: Hertz Corporation, the car rental company.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with a products liability case or have any other legal questions?
Disposition for case brief
Case Rating: *
Disposition for Case Brief:
- Case: Stang v. Hertz Corp., *-NMCA-*
- Facts: Plaintiffs rented a car from Hertz Corporation; tire blowout caused injuries.
- Issue: Can car rental companies be held strictly liable for defects?
- Holding: Yes, rental companies can be considered "sellers" for strict liability.
- Reasoning: Rental companies provide products to consumers and bear responsibility for their safety.
- Outcome: Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, establishing rental companies' liability for defects.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case or have additional legal questions?
Disposition for Case Brief:
- Case: Stang v. Hertz Corp., *-NMCA-*
- Facts: Plaintiffs rented a car from Hertz Corporation; tire blowout caused injuries.
- Issue: Can car rental companies be held strictly liable for defects?
- Holding: Yes, rental companies can be considered "sellers" for strict liability.
- Reasoning: Rental companies provide products to consumers and bear responsibility for their safety.
- Outcome: Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, establishing rental companies' liability for defects.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case or have additional legal questions?
Disposition for case STANG V. HERTZ CORP., *-NMCA-*, * N.M. *, * P.2d * (Ct. App. *)
Case Rating: *
Disposition for Case STANG V. HERTZ CORP., *-NMCA-*:
- Case: Stang v. Hertz Corp., *-NMCA-*.
- Facts: Plaintiffs rented a car from Hertz. The tire blew out, causing injuries.
- Issue: Can rental companies be held strictly liable for defects?
- Holding: Yes, rental companies can be considered "sellers" for strict liability.
- Reasoning: Rental companies provide products to consumers, thus bear responsibility for their safety.
- Outcome: Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, establishing rental companies' liability for defects.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case or have additional legal questions?
Disposition for Case STANG V. HERTZ CORP., *-NMCA-*:
- Case: Stang v. Hertz Corp., *-NMCA-*.
- Facts: Plaintiffs rented a car from Hertz. The tire blew out, causing injuries.
- Issue: Can rental companies be held strictly liable for defects?
- Holding: Yes, rental companies can be considered "sellers" for strict liability.
- Reasoning: Rental companies provide products to consumers, thus bear responsibility for their safety.
- Outcome: Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, establishing rental companies' liability for defects.
Would you like more detailed information on how to proceed with your case or have additional legal questions?
Start a new chat