Section I.

This Section requires you to find several cases and identify whether a Federal or a State Court issued the judicial opinion in the case cited. Each correct response is worth one $(1)$ point. Maximum points for this Section equals five $(5)$ points.

$1.$ Walus v$.$ Pfizer, Inc., $812$ F$.$ Supp. $41($D$.$N$.$J$.1993)$

$2.$ Trump v$.$ O$$Brien$,29$ A$\mathrm{.}3$d $1090($N$.$J$.$ Super. $2011)$

$3.$ Qualitex Co$.$ v$.$ Jacobson Products Co$.,514$ U$.$S$.159(1995)$

$4.$ O$$Brien v$.$ Muskin Corp., $94$ N$.$J$.169(1993)$

$5.$ Repola v$.$ Morbark Industries, $934$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $483(3$d Cir. $1991)$

Section II$.$

This Section requires you to identify whether the Court issuing the judicial opinion in each of the following cases is a trial court or an appellate court. Each correct response is worth one $(1)$ point. Maximum points for this section equal ten $(10)$ points.

$1.$ Patch v$.$ Hillerich & Bradsby Co$.,257$ P$\mathrm{.}3$d $383($Mont$.2011)$

$2.$ Walus v$.$ Pfizer, Inc., $812$ F$.$ Supp. $41($D$.$N$.$J$.1993)$

$3.$ Rogath v$.$ Siebenmann, $129$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $902(7$th Cir. $1997)$

$4.$ Schock v$.$ Ronderos, $394$ N$.$W$\mathrm{.}2$d $697($N$.$D$.1986)$

$5.$ Trump v$.$ O$$Brien$,29$ A$\mathrm{.}3$d $1090($N$.$J$.$ Super. $2011)$

$6.$ Qualitex Co$.$ v$.$ Jacobson Products Co$.,514$ U$.$S$.159(1995)$

$7.$ O$$Brien v$.$ Muskin Corp., $94$ N$.$J$.169(1993)$

$8.$ Ventas, Inc. v$.$ HCP$,$ Inc., $647$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $291(6$th Cir. $2011)$

$9.$ Repola v$.$ Morbark Industries, $934$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $483(3$d Cir. $1991)$

$10.$ Palsgraf v$.$ Long Island R$.$R$.$ Co$.,162$ N$.$E$.99($N$.$Y$.1928)$

Section III.

This Section requires each student to find and read the case of DeBenedetto v$.$ Denny's, $421$ N$.$J$.$ Super. $312($Law Div. $2010)$ and to respond correctly to the following questions regarding the case. Briefly, the case involves allegations of a product defect. Your correct responses to each of the questions below are worth a maximum total of fifteen $(15)$ points.

Explain: $($a$)$ what the Plaintiff alleged specifically about Denny's food $($i$.$e$.,$ why was it "defective"$),$ and $($b$)$ why the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint against Denny's after finding that the food may well have been "defective."

Section IV$.$

This Section requires each student to find and read the case of Thomas v$.$ Staples, Inc., $2$ F$.$ Supp. $3$d $647($E$.$D$.$ Pa$.2014)$ and respond correctly to the following questions. Maximum points for this Section equal twenty $(20)$ points.

$1.$ On a motion for $$summary judgment,$$ the Court$$s function is to decide whether there is a genuine issue that requires a trial and a factual determination to be made by a jury $($or a judge$).$ In the Thomas case, the Court addressed the general standard to be used in issuing a summary judgment to a moving party. According to the District Court, when is it appropriate to grant summary judgment to a movant? $(5$ Points$)$

$2.$ Section $402$A of the Restatement of Torts $(2$nd Ed$.)$ and Sections $1$ & $2$ of the Restatement of Torts $(3$d Ed$.)$ set forth the general legal principles used to impose strict liability for product defects in the United States, with most jurisdictions having adopted them as reflective of their state$$s law, as the Court in Thomas did. Pursuant to the Restatements, products that are $$unreasonably dangerous$$ may be defective in their manufacture, design or marketing. What did the Plaintiff allege about the Defendant$$s shredder that rendered it $$defective$$ in this case? $(5$ Points$)$

$3.$ Did the Plaintiff provide the Court with sufficient proof of a product defect in this case to warrant a trial on her strict$-$liability$-$in$-$tort claims? Explain the type$($s$)$ of defect that Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated in this case and what the Court required for each type of product defect alleged. $(10$ Points$)$

Section V$.($Optional Extra Credit $$ Max. $6$ Points$)$

In the Thomas case in Section IV$,$ the District Court rejected the Defendant$$s claim that the injured party had to be an $$user$$ of the product in order to sue and recover damages in a strict$-$liability$-$in$-$tort action. Explain whether the Court agreed or disagreed with the Defendant$$s claim and why. $(6$ Points$)$