Jones v. Ryobi, Ltd.
37 F.3d 423 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Missouri law, a manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries caused by its product when a third party's substantial modification makes an otherwise safe product unsafe, even if such a modification was foreseeable.
Facts:
- Ryobi, Ltd. manufactured a printing press equipped with a plastic safety guard and an electric interlock switch that automatically stopped the machine if the guard was opened.
- A.B. Dick Corporation distributed the press, selling it to Jennifer Jones's employer, Business Cards Tomorrow (BCT).
- Sometime after the sale, a third party removed the safety guard and disabled the interlock switch to increase production speed by allowing adjustments while the press was running.
- This modification was a common practice in the printing industry.
- Jones's supervisor pressured her to save time by adjusting the press's eject wheels while it was running without the safety features.
- While making an adjustment to the running press, Jones was startled by a noise, and her left hand was caught in the machine's moving parts and crushed.
- A service representative for the distributor, A.B. Dick, had previously told BCT's owner that the guard should be replaced, but the owner disregarded the advice.
Procedural Posture:
- Jennifer Jones filed a diversity lawsuit against Ryobi, Ltd. and A.B. Dick Corporation in the United States District Court, alleging negligence and strict product liability.
- During trial, Jones dropped her negligence claims.
- Jones later moved to amend her complaint to reassert a negligence claim against the distributor, but the district court denied the motion.
- At the close of Jones's case, both defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (JAML).
- The district court granted the defendants' motions for JAML.
- Jones (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Ryobi, Ltd. and A.B. Dick Corporation as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Missouri law, is a manufacturer strictly liable for a design defect when an injury is caused by a third party's substantial modification of the product's safety features after the sale, even if the modification was foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Fagg, Circuit Judge
No. A manufacturer is not strictly liable for a design defect where the evidence shows a third party's subsequent modification, not a defect existing at the time of sale, was the sole cause of the injury. To recover under a theory of strict liability for defective design, the plaintiff must prove the injury was a direct result of a defect that existed when the product was sold. Jones failed to meet this burden, as her own evidence established that the press was substantially modified by the removal of the safety guard and disabling of the interlock switch. This modification, not an original defect, caused her injury. The court held that when a third party's modification makes a safe product unsafe, the seller is relieved of liability even if the modification is foreseeable. The press was safe as sold because it would not operate without the guard; the employer's decision to encourage unsafe operation for efficiency does not render the original design defective.
Dissenting - Heaney, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes. A jury could have reasonably concluded that the printing press was unreasonably dangerous as originally designed, and therefore the manufacturer should be held liable. The dissent argues that the modification was entirely foreseeable, as a 'vast majority' of these machines had their guards removed. There was sufficient evidence, particularly from Jones's expert witness, that the original design was flawed: the interlock device was not 'fail-safe,' the guard was made of brittle material that impeded ventilation, and the design essentially required operators to place their hands near moving parts to make necessary adjustments. The fact that nearly all users removed the safety features is strong evidence that the product could not operate efficiently as designed, which points to an original design defect. Therefore, the question of whether the product was unreasonably dangerous should have been decided by a jury, not dismissed by the court.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a significant defense for manufacturers in product liability law, known as the substantial modification defense. It clarifies that the causal link required for a strict liability claim is severed when a third party alters a product's safety features post-sale, making the product unsafe. The ruling places the onus of liability on the party that modifies the product (often the employer), even if the manufacturer could have foreseen that users might make such modifications to increase efficiency. This precedent limits the scope of a manufacturer's duty to anticipate misuse and protects them from liability stemming from changes made after the product has left their control.
