Linegar v. Armour of America
909 F.2d 1150 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product is not defectively designed or unreasonably dangerous under a strict liability theory when its design limitations are open and obvious, and the product performs as expected in the areas it is designed to cover.
Facts:
- Missouri State Highway Patrol Trooper Jimmy Linegar conducted a routine traffic stop of a van driven by David Tate.
- Tate brandished an automatic weapon and fired multiple shots at Linegar.
- At the time, Linegar was wearing a contour-style, bullet-resistant vest manufactured by Armour of America, Inc.
- The vest, issued by the Highway Patrol, was designed with front and back panels that did not meet at the sides, creating an obvious, unprotected area along the sides of the wearer's body under the arms.
- Five bullets struck the vest itself, and none penetrated it.
- The fatal bullet struck Linegar in his side, approximately three inches below his armpit, in an area not covered by the vest.
Procedural Posture:
- The widow and children of Jimmy Linegar sued Armour of America, Inc. in federal district court, the court of first instance, under diversity jurisdiction.
- The plaintiffs' sole claim submitted to the jury was for strict liability in tort based on a defective design theory.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding them $1.5 million in damages.
- Armour of America, Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Linegar's family as the 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:
Does a bullet-resistant vest's design, which provides less than complete coverage and has obvious gaps under the arms, render the product defective and unreasonably dangerous under Missouri's strict products liability law?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowman, Circuit Judge
No. A product is not considered defective and unreasonably dangerous when its limitations are open and obvious to the user. The court reasoned that the vest performed precisely as expected by stopping all bullets that hit it. Applying the consumer expectation test, the court found that no ordinary user would expect protection in areas the vest obviously did not cover. The obviousness of a product's limitations is material to determining whether it is unreasonably dangerous. A manufacturer is not obligated to market only the single safest possible design of a product, as consumers and purchasers often make trade-offs between maximum safety, flexibility, comfort, and cost. To hold Armour liable would improperly cast it as an insurer for any injury sustained while wearing the vest, which runs counter to the purpose of product liability law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'unreasonably dangerous' element in design defect cases under Missouri law by emphasizing the 'open and obvious' nature of a product's limitations. It establishes that a product is not defective merely because a safer alternative design exists. The ruling protects manufacturers from liability when a product's limitations are apparent and a sophisticated buyer, like a law enforcement agency, makes a deliberate choice among different designs. This precedent reinforces the principle that courts should not dictate product design specifications, particularly for safety equipment where inherent trade-offs between protection, mobility, and user comfort exist.
Unlock the full brief for Linegar v. Armour of America