The leading case in Oklahoma on products liability is Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla.1974). Ms. Kirkland claimed to have been injured with the seat in the G.M. car she was driving failed causing her to fall into the back seat and lose control of the car. She claimed that she was injured in the accident. The District Court sustained Defendant's motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court but in doing so adopted a new cause of action in Oklahoma which it called "Manufacturers' Products Liability." The reason it gave for not reversing the trial court was that the use of the automobile by Mr. Kirkland who was drinking and driving was that her behavior constituted "misuse of the product." A plaintiff making a manufacturers' products liability claim in Oklahoma must prove:
1. That the plaintiff must prove that the defendant manufactured, sold or leased the product;
2. That the defendant was in the business of manufacturing, selling or leasing such products;
3. That the product was defective and because of the defect, the product was unreasonably dangerous to a person or his property who uses, consumes, or might be reasonably expected to be affected by the product;
4. The product was defective at the time it was manufactured, so ld or leased by the defendant and left his control;
5. The plaintiff was a person who used, consumed, or could have reasonably been affected by the product;
6. The plaintiff sustained personal injuries or his property was damaged directly by the defect in the product.
A product is defective when it is not reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such products are intended or may reasonably be expected to be used. A defect may ariseout of the design, manufacture, packaging, or labeling whilethe product is in the control of a defendant. Mayberry v. Akron Rubber Mach. Co., 483 F.Supp. 407, 412 (N.D. Okla.1979).
"Unreasonably dangerous" means that the article must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer who purchased it with the ordinaryknowledge common to the community as to the products characteristics. Smith v. United States Gypsum Co., 612 P.2d 251, 253 (Okla. 1980).
Direct cause means a cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence, produces injury and without which the injury would not have happened. For a defect in a product to be a direct cause it is necessary that some injury to the property of a person in a Plaintiff's situation must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the defect. There maybe more than one direct cause of an injury. When an in jury is the result of a defect in a product as well as the conduct of another person or other persons, both the defect and the conduct of the other person are direct causes of the injury regardless of the extent to which each contributed to the injury.
A product that involves a risk of harm to persons or property when it is used by an ordinary user in the way that it was intended to be used and in a way that the manufacturer, seller, or lessor could reasonably have foreseen is defective if:
1. The product does not have an adequate warning of its dangerous characteristics or adequate instructions for its safe use that are sufficient to inform an ordinary user of the risk of harm; and
2. The risk of harm is not one that an ordinary user would reasonably expert.
No warning or instructions are required under Oklahoma law if the particular danger would be apparent to an ordinary user from the nature of the product itself or from other information known to the user.
A warning must adequately inform the ordinary user of the precautions, if any, he must take and the risk, if any, that he is exposed to in the use of the product. The warning must reasonably communicate the extent or seriousness of the harm that could result from the danger.
Where an adequate warning is given, the manufacturer anddistributor may reasonably assume that it will be read and that the product will be used according to the directions orinstructions.
A product bearing such a warning, which is safe for useif it is followed, is not defective, nor is it unreasonablydangerous.
A manufacturer or seller of food or beverage is not liable for injuries sustained by a consumer if the substance causing the injury should reasonably be expected to be in the food or beverage. Sneed v. Beaverson, 395 P. 2d 414, 415 (Okla. 1964); O'Dell v. DeJean's Packing Co., Inc., 585 P.2d 399, 401-02 (Okla.App. 1978); and Williams v. Braum Ice Cream Stores, Inc., 534 P.2d 700, 702 (Okla.App. 1975).
A substance should be reasonably expected to be in a food or beverage if the average consumer would the expert the food or beverage to contain that substance. Examples would bepearls in oysters or cherry pit in cherry ice cream.
Misuse of a product is a use that could not reasonably be anticipated by its maker. If a consumer uses a product in away that is forseeable or should be anticipated by the itsmanufacturer, it is not misuse even if the consumer or useris negligent in using it. The defense of misuse or abnormal use of a product refers to those situations where the method of using a product is not that which the maker intended it tobe used.
Kirland v. General Motors, supra., is still the law of Oklahoma, which has never enacted statutes which modify the law adopted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
These pages are a Public Service Of: Morlan & Associates, P.C.
Copyright 2003