Defective Product Equals Any User Strictly Liable
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
20439_floating_star_driveway · TORTS · Choice ALydia was a professional Christmas-pageant director.
Why it's attractive
The professional title sounds like it carries a higher legal duty. The breaker is that the answer never says Lydia breached any professional or ordinary standard.
Why it's wrong
Professional status does not supply breach.
Spot it next time
Ask what the professional did unreasonably.
20439_floating_star_driveway · TORTS · Choice BLydia’s conduct was a concurring cause of Timothy’s harm.
Why it's attractive
Causation sounds like the missing link in a tort case. The breaker is that causation without negligence, intent, or strict liability is only a fragment.
Why it's wrong
Causation alone does not supply a liability basis.
Spot it next time
Add the question: cause plus what fault or strict-liability category?
20439_floating_star_driveway · TORTS · Choice DLydia is strictly liable for harm resulting from her use of a defective product.
Why it's attractive
Strict liability and defective-product language sound powerful because they reduce the need to prove fault. The breaker is that Lydia is a user of the rig, not the commercial supplier or distributor.
Why it's wrong
Strict products liability is aimed at commercial sellers or distributors, not a mere user.
Spot it next time
Use GK-TORTS-USER-SUPPLIER-01.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →