Moore v. Ford Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc · 2011 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityFailure to warnDesign defectNegligenceStrict liabilitystrict liability failure to warnnegligent failure to warn

Facts

Jeanne and Monty Moore bought a 2002 Ford Explorer, and Ms. Moore, who was about 6 feet tall and weighed about 300 pounds, was later injured in a rear-end collision when the driver's seat collapsed backward and her head and shoulders struck the back seat, leaving her paraplegic. They alleged Ford failed to warn that the front seats could collapse rearward in rear impacts and were not designed or tested to protect occupants of Ms. Moore's size. Ms. Moore testified she read warnings and manuals, saw no seat weight limits or warning about rearward seat collapse, and would not have bought the Explorer had she known the seats were not designed for people of her size; Mr. Moore similarly testified he would not have purchased it and would have tried to prevent her from riding in it. The trial court directed a verdict for Ford on failure-to-warn claims based on the view that Missouri does not recognize a time-of-purchase warning theory, and only the design-defect claim went to the jury.

Issue

Whether the Moores made a submissible case for strict-liability and negligent failure to warn when they alleged Ford gave no warning that Explorer seats were more likely to collapse in certain rear-end collisions when used by an overweight occupant, and when they claimed they would not have purchased or used the vehicle had they been warned. Also at issue was whether the absence of a design defect verdict for the Moores defeated the warning claims.

Rule

The elements of strict-liability failure to warn are: (1) defendant sold the product in the course of its business; (2) the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time of sale when used as reasonably anticipated without knowledge of its characteristics; (3) defendant did not give an adequate warning of the danger; (4) the product was used in a reasonably anticipated manner; and (5) plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of the product being sold without an adequate warning. Missouri recognizes that an otherwise non-defective product may be rendered unreasonably dangerous by the absence of an adequate warning, a plaintiff need not prove the exact wording of the warning to make a submissible case, and causation is aided by a rebuttable heeding presumption if the plaintiff lacked prior knowledge of the danger.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Kansas City, Lena Ortiz was injured when the folding handle of a home rowing machine swung backward during a sudden stop and struck her face. She sued Prairie Current Fitness, alleging both design defect and strict-liability failure to warn, claiming the company knew the handle was more likely to swing backward for users over 240 pounds but gave no warning; the jury found for the company on design defect.

If the trial judge then enters judgment for Prairie Current Fitness on the failure-to-warn claim solely because the jury rejected design defect, what is the strongest argument for reversal?

Explanation. The majority treats design defect and failure to warn as distinct theories aimed at different dangers. A jury may find that a product's design is not itself defective yet still find the product unreasonably dangerous because consumers were not warned of a danger associated with its use. So a defense verdict on design defect does not automatically defeat a strict-liability failure-to-warn claim. (Derived from Moore v. Ford Motor Co. (n.d.).)