Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 411
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.320 (2026)

Circumstances under which defendant is liable

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In any product liability action, a manufacturer shall be liable only for the personal injury, death or property damage that would have occurred if the product had been used in its original, unaltered and unmodified condition. For the purpose of this section, product alteration or modification shall include failure to observe routine care and maintenance, but shall not include ordinary wear and tear. This section shall apply to alterations or modifications made by any person or entity, except those made in accordance with specifications or instructions furnished by the manufacturer.

(2) In any product liability action, if the plaintiff performed an unauthorized alteration or an unauthorized modification, and such alteration or modification was a substantial cause of the occurrence that caused injury or damage to the plaintiff, the defendant shall not be liable whether or not said defendant was at fault or the product was defective.

(3) In any product liability action, if the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care in the circumstances in his use of the product, and such failure was a substantial cause of the occurrence that caused injury or damage to the plaintiff, the defendant shall not be liable whether or not said defendant was at fault or the product was defective. Effective: June 17, 1978 History: Created 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 91, sec. 4, effective June 17, 1978.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Parrish, 58 S.W.3d 467 (Ky. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Parrish, 58 S.W.3d 467 (Ky. 2001). · cites it 15× “[17] This enactment repealed KRS 411.320(3), and in products liability actions, a plaintiff's own negligence with respect to the product itself is no longer a complete bar to recovery but is instead governed by the same comparative fault principles which govern the fault of any…”
Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., 153 S.W.3d 758 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 6× “, indicates a legislative intent not to adopt the rule in Kentucky.”
Smith v. Louis Berkman Co., 894 F. Supp. 1084 (W.D. Ky. 1995). · cites it 17× “The parties’ arguments require the Court to consider whether KRS 411.320, the statute precluding manufacturer liability under certain circumstances, survives the enactment of the comparative fault standard in state tort law.”
Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984). · cites it 4× “040 which provides that a jury "may" elect to apportion damages among defendants jointly or severally liable; (2) KRS 411.320 which provides that contributory negligence is a defense to a product liability action; and (3) KRS 277.”
Monsanto Co. v. Reed, 950 S.W.2d 811 (Ky. 1997). · cites it 4× “In their suit, wherein damages were sought from both Monsanto and Westinghouse, the Pike Circuit Court granted summary judgment and held that a provision of the Product Liability Act (PLA), KRS 411.320, barred recovery on grounds that the dismantling of the transformers and…”
Reda Pump Co., a Div. of TRW, Inc. v. Finck, 713 S.W.2d 818 (Ky. 1986). · cites it 4× “The present Opinion proceeds from two premises: (1) that KRS 411.320(3) should be "construed according to the plain meaning of the words"; and (2) the statute represents "policy clearly established by the General Assembly.”
Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 83 S.W.3d 483 (Ky. 2002). · cites it 2× “KRS 411.320 provides that a manufacturer is not liable for damages substantially caused by unauthorized alteration or modification of the product whether or not the manufacturer was at fault or the product was defective.”
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Rice, 775 S.W.2d 924 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “Under KRS 411.320, a manufacturer is liable only for injuries that would have occurred if the product had been used in its original, unaltered and unmodified condition.”
Nucor Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 812 S.W.2d 136 (Ky. 1991). · cites it 2× “320(3), a subsection specifying that if the plaintiff is negligent "in his use of the product, and such failure was a substantial cause of the occurrence that caused injury or damage to the plaintiff, the defendant shall not be liable whether or not said defendant was at fault…”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Brock, 915 S.W.2d 751 (Ky. 1996). · cites it 4× “182(1) negated KRS 411.320(1). The basis of the challenge arises from the following statement of facts and nature of the case.”
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,329 Pamela Morales, Guardian of Gary Thompson Bank of the Bluegrass & Trust Co., Conservator of Gary Thompson, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Honda R&d Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Pamela Morales, Third-Party, 151 F.3d 500 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “The proposed apportionment statute is adverse to the purpose of the products liability statute to such an extent that the apportionment statute negates the products liability statute enunciated in KRS 411.320(1). 116 The language of the comparative fault statute, KRS 411.”
Connie Thacker v. Ethicon, Inc., 47 F.4th 451 (6th Cir. 2022). “2 See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.320. Pursuant to 28 U.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.320(1) — 12 cases
Smith v. Louis Berkman Co., 894 F. Supp. 1084 (W.D. Ky. 1995). “The parties’ arguments require the Court to consider whether KRS 411.320, the statute precluding manufacturer liability under certain circumstances, survives the enactment of the comparative fault standard in state tort law.”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Brock, 915 S.W.2d 751 (Ky. 1996). “182(1) negated KRS 411.320(1). The basis of the challenge arises from the following statement of facts and nature of the case.”
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,329 Pamela Morales, Guardian of Gary Thompson Bank of the Bluegrass & Trust Co., Conservator of Gary Thompson, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Honda R&d Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Pamela Morales, Third-Party, 151 F.3d 500 (3rd Cir. 1998). “The proposed apportionment statute is adverse to the purpose of the products liability statute to such an extent that the apportionment statute negates the products liability statute enunciated in KRS 411.320(1). 116 The language of the comparative fault statute, KRS 411.”
Monsanto Co. v. Reed, 950 S.W.2d 811 (Ky. 1997). “In their suit, wherein damages were sought from both Monsanto and Westinghouse, the Pike Circuit Court granted summary judgment and held that a provision of the Product Liability Act (PLA), KRS 411.320, barred recovery on grounds that the dismantling of the transformers and…”
Dix & Assocs. Pipeline Contractors, Inc. v. Key, 799 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. 1990).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.320(2) — 4 cases
Smith v. Louis Berkman Co., 894 F. Supp. 1084 (W.D. Ky. 1995). “The parties’ arguments require the Court to consider whether KRS 411.320, the statute precluding manufacturer liability under certain circumstances, survives the enactment of the comparative fault standard in state tort law.”
Monsanto Co. v. Reed, 950 S.W.2d 811 (Ky. 1997). “In their suit, wherein damages were sought from both Monsanto and Westinghouse, the Pike Circuit Court granted summary judgment and held that a provision of the Product Liability Act (PLA), KRS 411.320, barred recovery on grounds that the dismantling of the transformers and…”
Low v. Power Tool Specialist, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Ky. 2011).
Kanawha Steel & Equip. Co. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 131 (E.D. Ky. 1987).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.320(3) — 16 cases
Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Parrish, 58 S.W.3d 467 (Ky. 2001). “[17] This enactment repealed KRS 411.320(3), and in products liability actions, a plaintiff's own negligence with respect to the product itself is no longer a complete bar to recovery but is instead governed by the same comparative fault principles which govern the fault of any…”
Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., 153 S.W.3d 758 (Ky. 2004). “, indicates a legislative intent not to adopt the rule in Kentucky.”
Reda Pump Co., a Div. of TRW, Inc. v. Finck, 713 S.W.2d 818 (Ky. 1986). “The present Opinion proceeds from two premises: (1) that KRS 411.320(3) should be "construed according to the plain meaning of the words"; and (2) the statute represents "policy clearly established by the General Assembly.”
Nucor Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 812 S.W.2d 136 (Ky. 1991). “320(3), a subsection specifying that if the plaintiff is negligent "in his use of the product, and such failure was a substantial cause of the occurrence that caused injury or damage to the plaintiff, the defendant shall not be liable whether or not said defendant was at fault…”
DeStock 14, Inc. v. Logsdon, 993 S.W.2d 952 (Ky. 1999).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.320(l) — 1 case
Low v. Power Tool Specialist, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Ky. 2011).
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.