Moore v. Ford Motor Co.
332 S.W.3d 749 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product that is not defectively designed may still be considered unreasonably dangerous due to the absence of an adequate warning about risks posed to a particular class of users. A plaintiff makes a submissible case for failure to warn by presenting evidence that they would not have purchased or used the product had such a warning been given.
Facts:
- In April 2005, Jeanne and Monty Moore purchased a 2002 Ford Explorer.
- On November 1, 2005, Jeanne Moore, who was 6 feet tall and weighed approximately 300 pounds, was driving the Explorer.
- While stopped to make a left turn, her vehicle was struck from behind by another car.
- Upon impact, the driver's seat collapsed backward, causing Ms. Moore's head and shoulders to strike the back seat.
- The collision fractured Ms. Moore's T9 vertebra, rendering her a paraplegic.
- Ford did not provide any warnings in the owner's manual or on the vehicle that the front seats were designed to collapse in a rear impact or that there were weight limitations for the seats' performance in such collisions.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanne and Monty Moore sued Ford Motor Company in the St. Louis County circuit court (trial court) for negligence and strict liability.
- At the close of the Moores' case-in-chief, the trial court granted Ford's motion for a directed verdict on the failure to warn claims.
- The Moores subsequently dismissed their negligent design claim, and only the strict liability design defect claim went to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford on the design defect claim.
- The Moores (appellants) appealed the directed verdict on their failure to warn claims against Ford (appellee) to the court of appeals.
- After an opinion by the court of appeals, the Missouri Supreme Court accepted transfer of the case.
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 plaintiff make a submissible case for a strict liability failure to warn claim by showing that a product, while not found to be defectively designed, is unreasonably dangerous to a specific class of users without a warning, and that the plaintiff would not have purchased the product if an adequate warning had been provided?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Laura Denvir Stith
Yes, a plaintiff makes a submissible case for failure to warn under these circumstances. Design defect and failure to warn are distinct legal theories, and a product's design may be found non-defective while the lack of an adequate warning renders it unreasonably dangerous. The court reasoned that a jury could find the Explorer was unreasonably dangerous for an overweight person like Ms. Moore without a warning, even if the seat's design itself was not defective. The court further held that causation can be established by showing that an adequate warning would have altered the plaintiff's behavior, which includes the decision not to purchase the product in the first place. This 'time of purchase' theory is not overly speculative when it concerns the direct purchaser's own actions, distinguishing it from prior cases that involved speculating about a third party's conduct. Missouri law does not require a plaintiff to propose the exact wording of an adequate warning to make a submissible case.
Dissenting - Chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr.
No, a plaintiff does not make a submissible case for failure to warn without offering evidence of what a feasible and adequate warning would have been. The dissent argued that the 'heeding presumption'—that a warning would be heeded—only applies after a plaintiff shows what an adequate warning would say and that such a warning was feasible. By not requiring plaintiffs to propose a specific warning, the majority allows a jury to speculate and potentially holds manufacturers to an impossible standard, especially for complex products where risks vary based on numerous factors like occupant weight, height, and collision speed. The dissent contended that because Missouri adopted the heeding presumption from Indiana law, it should also adopt Indiana's requirement that plaintiffs provide evidence of a specific, adequate warning.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies Missouri products liability law by firmly separating failure to warn from design defect as an independent cause of action. It establishes that a product can be deemed non-defective in design, yet unreasonably dangerous due to inadequate warnings. The case's most significant impact is its validation of a 'time of purchase' causation theory, allowing plaintiffs to argue they would not have bought the product if properly warned. This expands manufacturer liability beyond warnings about product use to include disclosures about risks that could influence a consumer's initial purchase decision, especially for products that pose different levels of risk to different user demographics.
Unlock the full brief for Moore v. Ford Motor Co.