Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Manufacturing Co.
861 P.2d 1299, 253 Kan. 741, 1993 Kan. LEXIS 157 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer has a limited post-sale duty, grounded in negligence, to take reasonable steps to warn ultimate consumers of a life-threatening hazard that was present but unforeseeable at the time of sale. However, Kansas common law does not impose a post-sale duty on manufacturers to recall or retrofit their products.
Facts:
- In 1977, Ryan Patton's father purchased a Wil-Rich Field Cultivator from an authorized dealer.
- The cultivator has large, hydraulically-lifted 'wings' that can be secured in the raised position with a manually inserted lock pin.
- If hydraulic pressure is not maintained and the lock pin is removed, the wing can fall rapidly and unexpectedly.
- After the 1977 sale, the manufacturer, Hutchinson Wil-Rich Manufacturing Company (HWR), became aware of several other accidents involving falling cultivator wings, with some occurring as early as 1983.
- A competitor, Deere & Company, instituted a mandatory safety retrofit program in 1983 for its similarly designed cultivators due to the same danger.
- HWR's Vice President of Engineering learned of the Deere program and knew his company had problems with the wings, but believed not retrofitting the HWR cultivators was an 'acceptable risk.'
- On April 21, 1990, while changing a hydraulic cylinder, Ryan Patton stood under a raised wing to remove the lock pin.
- When Patton removed the pin, the wing fell on him, causing serious injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Ryan Patton filed a product liability lawsuit against Hutchinson Wil-Rich Manufacturing Company (HWR) and other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- HWR filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that Kansas law did not impose any post-sale duties to warn, retrofit, or recall its products.
- Finding no controlling Kansas precedent on these issues, the U.S. District Court certified four questions of law to the Supreme Court of Kansas for resolution.
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 Kansas products liability law impose a post-sale duty upon a manufacturer to warn ultimate consumers of, or to retrofit or recall, a product when the manufacturer learns of a life-threatening hazard that was present but unforeseeable at the time of sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Six, J.
Yes, in part, and No, in part. Kansas law recognizes a qualified post-sale duty to warn of later-discovered, life-threatening defects, but it does not impose a common-law duty to retrofit or recall products. The court establishes a post-sale duty to warn based on a negligence standard, not strict liability. This duty arises when a manufacturer discovers a life-threatening hazard that originated at the time of manufacture but was unforeseeable at the point of sale. The reasonableness of the manufacturer's post-sale conduct is the cardinal inquiry. The court rejected imposing a duty to recall or retrofit, reasoning that such actions involve complex cost-benefit analyses better suited for administrative agencies and legislatures, which already have statutory authority in many areas. The judiciary's role is to address specific cases, not to create broad recall mandates.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant, but limited, precedent in Kansas products liability law by creating a common-law post-sale duty to warn. By grounding this duty in negligence and limiting it to life-threatening hazards, the court balances consumer safety against the potentially overwhelming burden on manufacturers of older products. The decision firmly separates the duty to warn from any duty to recall or retrofit, directing those more drastic remedies to legislative and administrative bodies. This clear demarcation provides guidance for future cases, ensuring that while manufacturers cannot ignore newly discovered deadly defects, they are not subject to judicially-imposed recalls, which the court views as a matter of public policy best handled by other branches of government.
