A product liability claim is a type of tort claim in which an individual seeks damages for injury and/or death caused by a defective product or by a product that is unreasonably dangerous without proper warning. In Missouri, a product liability claim can be brought on the basis of strict liability (whereby no fault or negligence must be proven) or on the basis of negligence (requiring proof that a standard of care was breached).
With regard to strict liability claims, a manufacturer/seller can be found liable if either: 1) the product was defective, or 2) the product was unreasonably dangerous without an adequate warning.
With regard to a product liability claim based on negligence, a manufacturer/seller can be found liable if: 1) the defendant failed to use ordinary care in manufacturing the product, 2) the defendant failed to use ordinary care in designing the product, or 3) the defendant failed to use ordinary care in warning the consumer regarding the danger posed by the product.
It’s important to note, that depending on the theory of liability relied upon, it is not always necessary to demonstrate that a product is “defective” in order to prevail on a product liability claim. On a failure to warn claim, demonstrating that a product is “unreasonably dangerous” without adequate warning (even though the product is not defective) is sufficient to prevail on such a claim. In Moore v. Ford Motor Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri described the dichotomy between these two theories, stating:
[The automobile manufacturer’s] argument is misplaced. It assumes that a product cannot be unreasonably dangerous, even if it has no warnings of dangers associated with its use, so long as the product’s design itself is not defective. But this Court has “never specifically held that a finding of a product defect was a necessary predicate to a failure to warn action.” Palmer v. Hobart, 849 S.W.2d 135, 142 (Mo.App.1993). This is because design defect and failure to warn theories constitute distinct theories aimed at protecting consumers from dangers that arise in different ways.
For example, design defect theories address the situation in which a design is itself inadequate, rendering the product unreasonably dangerous without regard to whether a warning is given—such as a lawn mower designed without a guard or deflector plate. See, e.g., Keller v. Int’l Harvester Corp., 648 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Mo.App.1983).
But many products that otherwise might be dangerous can be used safely if adequate instructions for use are given and if warnings of dangers are adequate. Failure to warn claims are concerned with how a lack of warning about a product, and the user’s resultant lack of knowledge about the product’s dangers or safe use, may give rise to an unreasonable danger to the consumer. In such a case, it would not be inconsistent for a jury to find that a product’s design is not unreasonably dangerous in itself but that, without an accompanying warning imparting knowledge of the product’s dangerous characteristics or safe use, the otherwise non-defective product is unreasonably dangerous.
332 S.W.3d 749, 757 (Mo. 2011) (Emphasis added). In other words, even where a product may not be defective in and of itself, it may still be “unreasonably dangerous” where the product lacks a warning.
Product liability claims are often complex claims requiring extensive industry knowledge of the product at issue and prolonged litigation. By their nature, product liability claims are often brought against large corporations who will vigorously defend claims brought against them. As such, if you or a loved one has been injured or killed due to use of a dangerous or defective product, it is important that you seek an attorney who is experienced, and who has the resources, to fight these corporations. At the A.W. Smith Law firm, our attorneys have handled numerous product liability claims and understand what theories of liability to pursue under Missouri law. As such, if you believe you may have a product liability claim, please reach out to our firm for a free, no-obligation case assessment.
© The A.W. Smith Law Firm, P.C. 2024. All rights reserved.
