Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Auto Handling Corp.green2 sentences2025See, e.g., Johnson, 523 S.W.3d at 457-69 (chain and ratchet system); Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 628-44 (Mo. banc 2013) (cigarettes); Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 754-69 (Mo. banc 2011) (driver’s seat in a car); Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371, 372-88 (Mo. banc 1986) (airplane parts).10 Additionally, Missouri Courts have held product liability law does not apply to harm caused by a scouting program, the supply of electricity, medical services, and services in general, finding those items are not considered a product for purpos 2025See Johnson v. Auto Handling Corporation, 523 S.W.3d 452, 462 (Mo. banc 2017) (modified, August 22, 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Hobbs v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.green2 sentences2025See id. at *3-4 (citing In re Uber Technologies, 2024 WL 4211217 , at *24); see also section 19(a) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability (1998)11 (defining a product as, inter alia, an item that in “the context of [its] distribution and use is sufficiently analogous to the distribution and use of tangible personal property”); Hobbs, 152 S.W.3d at 371 -72 (citing approvingly to portions of section 19 of the Third Restatement in determining whether a scouting program was a product under Missouri product liability law). 2025Hobbs v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 152 S.W.3d 367, 371-72 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (scouting program and services in general); Balke v. Central Missouri Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., Johnson, 523 S.W.3d at 457-69 (chain and ratchet system); Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 628-44 (Mo. banc 2013) (cigarettes); Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 754-69 (Mo. banc 2011) (driver’s seat in a car); Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371, 372-88 (Mo. banc 1986) (airplane parts).10 Additionally, Missouri Courts have held product liability law does not apply to harm caused by a scouting program, the supply of electricity, medical services, and services in general, finding those items are not considered a product for purpos | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., Johnson, 523 S.W.3d at 457-69 (chain and ratchet system); Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 628-44 (Mo. banc 2013) (cigarettes); Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 754-69 (Mo. banc 2011) (driver’s seat in a car); Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371, 372-88 (Mo. banc 1986) (airplane parts).10 Additionally, Missouri Courts have held product liability law does not apply to harm caused by a scouting program, the supply of electricity, medical services, and services in general, finding those items are not considered a product for purpos | 1 | 1 |
Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., Johnson, 523 S.W.3d at 457-69 (chain and ratchet system); Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 628-44 (Mo. banc 2013) (cigarettes); Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 754-69 (Mo. banc 2011) (driver’s seat in a car); Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371, 372-88 (Mo. banc 1986) (airplane parts).10 Additionally, Missouri Courts have held product liability law does not apply to harm caused by a scouting program, the supply of electricity, medical services, and services in general, finding those items are not considered a product for purpos | 1 | 1 |
Holbrook v. Rosegreen1 sentence2014Holbrook v. Rose, 458 S.W.2d 155, 157 (Ky.1970) (“Proof of legal causation is required in cases involving liability for products including drugs ... legal causation may be established by a quantum of circumstantial evidence from which a jury may reasonably infer that the product was a legal cause of the harm”). | 1 | 1 |
Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc.green1 sentence2005"The essential elements of a strict product liability claim are (1) the defendant sold a product in the course of its business; (2) the product was then in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use; (3) the product was used in a manner reasonably anticipated; and (4) the plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of such defective condition as existed when the product was sold.” Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc., 37 S.W.3d 310, 325 (Mo.App.2000). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Cartel Capital Corp. v. Fireco of New Jerseygreen2 sentences1998See, Cartel Capital Corp. v. Fireco of New Jersey, 81 N.J. 548 , 410 A.2d 674 (1980). 1998See, Cartel Capital Corp. v. Fireco of New Jersey, 81 N.J. 548 , 410 A.2d 674 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Welkener v. Kirkwood Drug Store Co.green1 sentence1998See, Welkener v. Kirkwood Drug Store Co., 734 S.W.2d 233, 241 (Mo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.green1 sentence1990Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 434, 438 (Mo. banc 1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hendricks v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
green
1 sentence2025Co., 709 S.W.2d 483 , 496- 97 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986) (indicating an item is a product for purposes of a product liability claim when, as in this case, the item is placed into the stream of commerce). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bhagvandoss v. Beiersdorf, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Company
green
2 sentences1987Liability for Actual Damages The elements of a product liability claim are set out in Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. 1969), following Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). 1987Liability for Actual Damages The elements of a product liability claim are set out in Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. 1969), following Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.