Opinion ID: 759208
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Manufacturers' products liability

Text: 27 Plaintiffs assert that ICI is strictly liable for manufacturing a defective product. We read their complaint as alleging both that the AN was defectively designed because, as designed, it was more likely to provide explosive force than an alternative formula, and that ICI failed to issue adequate warnings to MidKansas that the AN was explosive grade rather than fertilizer grade so that Mid-Kansas could take appropriate precautions in selling the AN. 28 In Oklahoma, a party proceeding under a strict products liability theory--referred to as manufacturer's products liability--must establish three elements: (1) that the product was the cause of the injury, (2) that the defect existed in the product at the time it left the manufacturer, retailer, or supplier's control, and (3) that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous. Daniel v. Ben E. Keith Co., 97 F.3d 1329, 1332 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1363 (Okla.1974)). Unreasonably dangerous means dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. Kirkland, 521 P.2d at 1362-63; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. I (1965). A product may be unreasonably dangerous because it is defectively designed or manufactured, or because it is not accompanied by the proper warnings regarding use of the product. See Holt v. Deere & Co., 24 F.3d 1289, 1292 (10th Cir.1994); Attocknie v. Carpenter Mfg., Inc., 901 P.2d 221, 227 (Okla.App.1995). 29 As the basis of their defective design claim plaintiffs contend that ICI could have made the AN safer by using an alternate formulation or incorporating additives to prevent the AN from detonating. Plaintiffs' suggestion that the availability of alternative formulas renders ICI strictly liable for its product contradicts Oklahoma law. Apparently, the plaintiff would hold the manufacturer responsible if his product is not as safe as some other product on the market. That is not the test in these cases. Only when a defect in the product renders it less safe than expected by the ordinary consumer will the manufacturer be held responsible. Lamke v. Futorian Corp., 709 P.2d 684, 686 (Okla.1985); see also Woods v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp., 765 P.2d 770, 775 (Okla.1988) ([T]he evidence that the tank could have been made 'safer' does not establish that it was less safe than would be expected by the ordinary consumer.); Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc., 656 F.Supp. 771, 773 (D.N.M. Feb.6, 1987) (The mere fact that a product is capable of being misused to criminal ends does not render the product defective.), aff'd, 843 F.2d 406, 407 (10th Cir.1988). The ordinary consumer is one who would be foreseeably expected to purchase the product involved. Woods, 765 P.2d at 774. As plaintiffs acknowledge, the ordinary consumer of AN branded as fertilizer is a farmer. There is no indication that ICI's AN was less safe than would be expected by a farmer. 10 See Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 833 P.2d 284, 286 (Okla.1992) (A product is not defective when it is safe for normal handling and consumption....). 30 Similarly, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim regarding ICI's alleged failure to warn Mid-Kansas that the AN was explosive grade rather than fertilizer grade. Under Oklahoma law, a manufacturer may have a duty to warn consumers of potential hazards which occur from the use of its product. Rohrbaugh v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 965 F.2d 844, 846 (10th Cir.1992) (citing McKee v. Moore, 648 P.2d 21, 23 (Okla.1982)). If the manufacturer does not fulfill this duty, the product may be unreasonably dangerous. See Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co., 817 F.2d 1452, 1457 (10th Cir.1987); Steele v. Daisy Mfg. Co., 743 P.2d 1107, 1108-09 (Okla.App.1987); Smith v. United States Gypsum Co., 612 P.2d 251, 253-54 (Okla.1980). Interpreting Oklahoma law, this court has held that the duty to warn extends only to ordinary consumers and users of the products. See Rohrbaugh, 965 F.2d at 846; see also Woods, 765 P.2d at 774. Under this rationale, defendants had no duty to warn the suppliers of its product of possible criminal misuse. See Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J. v. Arcadian Corp., 991 F.Supp. 390, 408-10 (D.N.J. Dec.19, 1997) (under New York and New Jersey law, manufacturers of ammonium nitrate had no duty to warn distributors, retailers, dealers, or other suppliers of possibility that product could be criminally misused).