In any product liability action, if the manufacturer is identified and subject to the
jurisdiction of the court, a wholesaler, distributor, or retailer who distributes or sells a
product, upon his showing by a preponderance of the evidence that said product was sold
by him in its original manufactured condition or package, or in the same condition such
product was in when received by said wholesaler, distributor or retailer, shall not be liable
to the plaintiff for damages arising solely from the distribution or sale of such product,
unless such wholesaler, distributor or retailer, breached an express warranty or knew or
should have known at the time of distribution or sale of such product that the product was
in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
Effective: June 17, 1978
History: Created 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 91, sec. 6, effective June 17, 1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
Franke v. Ford Motor Co., 398 F. Supp. 2d 833 (W.D. Ky. 2005).
Franke v. Ford Motor Co., 398 F. Supp. 2d 833 (W.D. Ky. 2005).
· cites it 10× “In addition, Gemini has moved for summary judgment on the ground that is immune under KRS § 411.340, commonly referred to as the “middleman statute.”
Salisbury v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 166 F. Supp. 2d 546 (E.D. Ky. 2001).
· cites it 4× “§ 411.340 — Kentucky’s so-called “middleman” statute — bars plaintiffs from recovering against the defendant pharmacies.”
Worldwide Equip., Inc. v. Mullins, 11 S.W.3d 50 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 5× “Worldwide further argues that: (1) the middleman statute, KRS 411.340, immunized Worldwide from any responsibility for the allegedly defective truck; (2) application of KRS 281.”
Parker v. Henry A. Petter Supply Co., 165 S.W.3d 474 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “They consequently argued for application of the “middleman statute” of the Kentucky Products Liability Act, KRS 411.340. In addition, Hannan Supply asserted that the time period in which Parker handled asbestos materials was before Hannan Supply was founded.”
Smith v. Wyeth Inc., 488 F. Supp. 2d 625 (W.D. Ky. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Ky.Rev.Stat. § 411.340 The parties agree that the removing defendants and other manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of Kentucky courts because they have done business in Kentucky.”
Burke Enter., Inc. v. Mitchell, 700 S.W.2d 789 (Ky. 1985).
· cites it 2× “If movant's liability were premised on "sale" of the product in its "original manufacture condition," KRS 411.340 might provide a defense as movant so vehemently contends.”
Funk v. Wagner Mach., Inc., 710 S.W.2d 860 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The trial court ruled that the claim against Elgin Sweeper was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions and that the other defendants were relieved from any liability because the appellant was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and…”
Edwards v. Hop Sin, Inc., 140 S.W.3d 13 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“12 *17 Of course, as Hop Sin points out, the appellee in this case was the retailer, not the manufacturer, and KRS 411.340 limits the potential products liability of retailers.”
West v. Kki, LLC, 300 S.W.3d 184 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“We note that the “middleman” provisions of the Kentucky Product Liability Act contained in KRS 411.340 provide as follows: *192 In any product liability action, if the manufacturer is identified and subject to the jurisdiction of the court, a wholesaler, distributor, or retailer…”
Norman v. Sundance Spas, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Ky. 1994).
“KRS 411.340 (Michie 1992). 3 .Even if there is complete diversity of citizenship among opposing parties, the presence of a defendant who is a citizen of the state in which the federal court sits will defeat removal jurisdiction.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.340(1) — 1 case
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.