Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 (2026)
[Transferred.]
✓ current as of May 2026
Publisher's Notes. Former § 4-86-102 was renumbered as § 16-116-101 in 2016 by the Arkansas Code Revision Commission.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases, 1988–2016 · leading case: Sproles v. Associated Brigham Contractors, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 740 (Ark. 1994).
Sproles v. Associated Brigham Contractors, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 740 (Ark. 1994). “The trial court considered the matters submitted and concluded that no factual dispute existed with respect to NYS having accepted the platform constructed by ABC, and that under the accepted work doctrine ABC could not be liable for injuries to third persons. Sproles argues on…”
Pilcher v. Suttle Equip. Co., 223 S.W.3d 789 (Ark. 2006). “In order to state a cause of action under a theory of strict liability, a plaintiff must plead that: (1) he has sustained damages; (2) the defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling, selling, leasing, or distributing the product; (3) the product was…”
Bushong v. Garman Co., 843 S.W.2d 807 (Ark. 1992). “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 (a) (1987). “ ‘Defective condition’ means a condition of a product that renders it unsafe for reasonable foreseeable use and consumption.”
Yielding v. Chrysler Motor Co., Inc., 783 S.W.2d 353 (Ark. 1990). “Under our product liability statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 (1987), a plaintiff must prove that the product as supplied was defective so as to render it unreasonably dangerous and that such defect was the proximate cause of the accident.”
Joyce Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2013). “” (quoting Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 (a))). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bartlett casts doubt on the viability of Fullington’s design defect claim.”
Purina Mills, Inc. v. Askins, 875 S.W.2d 843 (Ark. 1994). “For the case to be correctly submitted to the jury on strict liability, the Askinses will have to offer proof that the feed was in a “defective condition which rendered it unreasonably dangerous” and that the “defective condition was a proximate cause of harm” to the cattle.”
Henry W. Boerner, Individually & as Adm'r of the Est. of Mary Jane Boerner, Deceased v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 394 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2005). “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 ; Boerner I, 260 F.”
Madden v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 45 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 4-86-102; Higgins, supraj A finding of liability on the part of the manufacturer is not necessary for a supplier to be held liable for a defective product.”
Chandler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 372 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 (a) (Repl. 2011); Madden v.”
Campbell Soup Co. v. Gates, 889 S.W.2d 750 (Ark. 1994). “An essential element to be established under the strict liability criteria of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 (a) (Repl. 1991) is that “[t]he product was supplied by [the supplier] in a defective condition which rendered it unreasonably dangerous.”
Kohl v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 78 F. Supp. 2d 885 (W.D. Ark. 1999). “To state a claim for strict liability under Arkansas law, plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant pharmacies are engaged in the business of selling a product; (2) the product was supplied in a defective condition which rendered it unreasonably dangerous; and (3) the…”
Lakeview Country Club, Inc. v. Superior Prods., 926 S.W.2d 428 (Ark. 1996). “However, this is not evidence that the product was defective. As appellees point out, if this evidence proves anything, it proves only that the product was misused.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102(a) — 6 cases
Joyce Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2013). “” (quoting Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 (a))). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bartlett casts doubt on the viability of Fullington’s design defect claim.”
Kohl v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 78 F. Supp. 2d 885 (W.D. Ark. 1999). “To state a claim for strict liability under Arkansas law, plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant pharmacies are engaged in the business of selling a product; (2) the product was supplied in a defective condition which rendered it unreasonably dangerous; and (3) the…”
Bushong v. Garman Co., 843 S.W.2d 807 (Ark. 1992). “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102 (a) (1987). “ ‘Defective condition’ means a condition of a product that renders it unsafe for reasonable foreseeable use and consumption.”
Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 121 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (E.D. Ark. 2000).
Rogers v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 744 F. Supp. 901 (E.D. Ark. 1990).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102(a)(2) — 2 cases
Pilcher v. Suttle Equip. Co., 223 S.W.3d 789 (Ark. 2006). “In order to state a cause of action under a theory of strict liability, a plaintiff must plead that: (1) he has sustained damages; (2) the defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling, selling, leasing, or distributing the product; (3) the product was…”
Purina Mills, Inc. v. Askins, 875 S.W.2d 843 (Ark. 1994). “For the case to be correctly submitted to the jury on strict liability, the Askinses will have to offer proof that the feed was in a “defective condition which rendered it unreasonably dangerous” and that the “defective condition was a proximate cause of harm” to the cattle.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102(a)(l) — 1 case
Wages v. Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr., 916 F. Supp. 2d 900 (W.D. Ark. 2013).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-86-102(b) — 1 case
Sproles v. Associated Brigham Contractors, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 740 (Ark. 1994). “The trial court considered the matters submitted and concluded that no factual dispute existed with respect to NYS having accepted the platform constructed by ABC, and that under the accepted work doctrine ABC could not be liable for injuries to third persons. Sproles argues on…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.