Moore v. Ford Motor Co. - 332 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. 2011)

Rule:

Where the evidence is sufficient to show that a product was unreasonably dangerous for use by the plaintiff without an additional warning and that had the warning been given at the time of purchase or before use on the day of the accident, it would have been heeded, a submissible case is made.

Facts:

Plaintiffs, Jeanne and Monty Moore, purchased a 2002 Ford Explorer. Jeanne Moore, who was 6 feet tall and weighed approximately 300 pounds, was hit from behind by another vehicle. At impact, the driver’s seat collapsed backward and Jeanne Moore’s head and shoulders hit the back seat, fracturing her T9 vertebra. The injury rendered Jeanne Moore a paraplegic. Plaintiffs sued Ford under theories of negligent failure to warn, strict liability failure to warn, negligent design and strict liability design defect. The trial court granted the motion for directed verdict on the plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims. According to the trial court, consumers must show that the warning would have affected their conduct at the time of the accident or injury. Plaintiffs appealed. 

Issue:

 Did the trial court err in directing a verdict on the failure to warn claims? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Missouri Supreme Court held that plaintiffs made a submissible case of strict liability for failure to warn in that the vehicle lacked any warnings that the front seats could collapse in rear impacts and were not tested or designed to perform with occupants of plaintiff's size. Contrary to the trial court's ruling, Missouri did recognize a failure to warn claim when the consumer showed she would not have purchased or would not have used an otherwise non-defective product that was rendered unreasonably dangerous because of the lack of adequate warning about the dangers the product posed to the class of users of which the plaintiff was a member. While the warning allegedly needed in the current case might have taken some thought to construct, in the absence of a showing that giving a warning simply would not be technically feasible, any remaining difficulty the manufacturer might have had in formulating the precise wording to use in the warning did not negate its need to warn.