Injury Alone Creates A Warning Defect
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
18179_campfire_rim_warning · TORTS · Choice AYes, because the user suffered physical injury.
Why it's attractive
The choice supplies the consequence (physical injury) but skips the antecedent duty question. The call is the warning-defect issue, not the burn.
Why it's wrong
The choice supplies the consequence (physical injury) but skips the antecedent duty question. The call is the warning-defect issue, not the burn.
18179_campfire_rim_warning · TORTS · Choice BNo, because fire rings are never products for products-liability purposes.
Why it's attractive
A campfire ring is a manufactured item sold in the commercial chain; it is a 'product' for § 402A and Restatement (Third) purposes.
Why it's wrong
A campfire ring is a manufactured item sold in the commercial chain; it is a 'product' for § 402A and Restatement (Third) purposes.
18179_campfire_rim_warning · TORTS · Choice CYes, because every dangerous product needs a warning for every possible injury.
Why it's attractive
The 'every dangerous product needs a warning' claim is a tiered absolute that asserts an always/only rule with a doctrinal exception. The Gold Key handles the obvious-danger carve-out.
Why it's wrong
The 'every dangerous product needs a warning' claim is a tiered absolute that asserts an always/only rule with a doctrinal exception. The Gold Key handles the obvious-danger carve-out.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →