MGMT 311 EXAM 2 NEWEST 2025 ACTUAL EXAM

• | P a g e

MGMT 311 EXAM 2 NEWEST 2025 ACTUAL EXAM

COMPLETE 100 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT

DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS)

|ALREADY GRADED A+||BRAND NEW!!

Emily, while driving a car manufactured by Toyosan, suffered a side impact collision from another driver. When Toyosan's air bag deployed, it caused damage to Emily's face and teeth as she hit her head against the steering wheel. If Emily sued Toyosan

for strict product liability, the court would likely conclude that:

• Emily misused the product in driving the car.
• Emily was comparatively negligent for her own injuries.
• Toyosan's air bag was defective because of the consumer-

expectations test.

• Toyosan's air bag did not have a defective product design. -

CORRECT ANSWER -c. Toyosan's airbag was defective because of the consumer-expectations test

David's family purchased a trampoline in 2000. They sold the trampoline at a garage sale in 2010 to Zac's family. In 2012, Zac is injured while jumping on the trampoline when it collapses. If Zac's family sues the trampoline manufacturer in 2013, their lawsuit will likely be dismissed based on the: 1 / 4

• | P a g e

• statute of limitations.
• statute of repose.
• no privity of contract.
• product misuse. - CORRECT ANSWER -b. statute of repose

Fred sued Document Security Company, alleging he had suffered injuries to his hands as a result of attempting to fix a jam in one of Document Security's paper shredders. Fred alleged the shredder was defective because it failed to contain warnings regarding the dangers to fingers and hands while attempting to fix jams. To succeed on a strict liability claim, Fred will have to

show:

• foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided

by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.

• all risk of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the

provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.

• paper shredders are inherently dangerous products.
• the injuries would not have occurred but for the absence of

the warnings. - CORRECT ANSWER -a. foreseeable risks of harm could have bee reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller 2 / 4

• | P a g e

Carl sues Goldman Manufacturing, alleging he suffered injuries as a result of a design defect in Goldman's food processor. To

prevail in this lawsuit, Carl must show that Goldman:

• had a reasonable alternative design available, which it failed

to use.

• failed to adequately warn him of the danger of harm.
• met the relevant statute of limitations or repose.
• met his consumer expectations and that his injury was

unintended - CORRECT ANSWER -a. had a reasonable alternative design available, which it failed to use

John purchases a blender from JuiceMart. A crack in the plastic casing causes the blade to swing out of control and nearly injure John's arm. John is shaken up by the incident but otherwise

uninjured. John's strict product liability suit will most likely:

• fail, because John did not incur physical harm to self or

property.

• fail, because the blender was not in a defective condition.
• succeed, because JuiceMart was in the business of selling that

product. 3 / 4

• | P a g e

• succeed, because the blender was not substantially changed

from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained. - CORRECT ANSWER -a. fail, because John did not incur physical harm to self or property

Mack is injured by a tractor manufactured by WestCo. In order to defend against a negligence claim based upon the product, WestCo may show that it exercised "due care" by all of the

following except:

• showing the absence of privity of contract between it and the

consumer.

• using the appropriate production process.
• placing adequate warnings on the label to inform the user of

dangers to which an ordinary person might not be aware.

• inspecting and testing any purchased components used in the

final product. - CORRECT ANSWER -a. showing the absence of privity of contract b/w it and the consumer

Harry discovers that a chemical compound has had an adverse impact on his land. The chemical compound is manufactured by five companies. Harry cannot identify which manufacturer's chemical caused the adverse impact to his land. Harry files a product liability lawsuit against all five companies. Harry's case

will:

• / 4