Any Sale Equals Strict Liability
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
15239_auctioneer-tractor · TORTS · Choice Aplaintiff, because Timothy sold a defective product that injured the plaintiff.
Why it's attractive
The choice states a true general rule but drops the 'commercial seller' limitation. Timothy is a one-time auctioneer, not a business seller of woodworking tools.
Why it's wrong
The choice states a true general rule but drops the 'commercial seller' limitation. Timothy is a one-time auctioneer, not a business seller of woodworking tools.
15239_auctioneer-tractor · TORTS · Choice Cplaintiff, because Timothy failed to inspect the saw for defects before selling it.
Why it's attractive
The duty to inspect belongs to commercial sellers in the business of selling the product. Timothy is a one-time auctioneer — no such duty attaches.
Why it's wrong
The duty to inspect belongs to commercial sellers in the business of selling the product. Timothy is a one-time auctioneer — no such duty attaches.
15239_auctioneer-tractor · TORTS · Choice Ddefendant, because Lydia's own negligence contributed to the accident.
Why it's attractive
The jurisdiction has not adopted comparative fault in strict liability. More importantly, the negligence issue is irrelevant because Timothy is not a commercial seller — the analysis never reaches defenses.
Why it's wrong
The jurisdiction has not adopted comparative fault in strict liability. More importantly, the negligence issue is irrelevant because Timothy is not a commercial seller — the analysis never reaches defenses.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →