Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 544.41 (2026)

Product Liability; Limit On Liability Of Nonmanufacturers

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Product liability; requirements.

In any product liability action based in whole or in part on strict liability in tort commenced or maintained against a defendant other than the manufacturer, that party shall upon answering or otherwise pleading file an affidavit certifying the correct identity of the manufacturer of the product allegedly causing injury, death or damage. The commencement of a product liability action based in whole or part on strict liability in tort against a certifying defendant shall toll the applicable statute of limitation relative to the defendant for purposes of asserting a strict liability in tort cause of action.

Subd. 2.Certifying defendant; dismissal of strict liability.

Once the plaintiff has filed a complaint against a manufacturer and the manufacturer has or is required to have answered or otherwise pleaded, the court shall order the dismissal of a strict liability in tort claim against the certifying defendant, provided the certifying defendant is not within the categories set forth in subdivision 3. Due diligence shall be exercised by the certifying defendant in providing the plaintiff with the correct identity of the manufacturer and due diligence shall be exercised by the plaintiff in filing a law suit and obtaining jurisdiction over the manufacturer.

The plaintiff may at any time subsequent to dismissal move to vacate the order of dismissal and reinstate the certifying defendant, provided plaintiff can show one of the following:

(1) that the applicable statute of limitation bars the assertion of a strict liability in tort cause of action against the manufacturer of the product allegedly causing the injury, death or damage;

(2) that the identity of the manufacturer given to the plaintiff by the certifying defendant was incorrect. Once the correct identity of the manufacturer has been given by the certifying defendant the court shall again dismiss the certifying defendant;

(3) that the manufacturer no longer exists, cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, or, despite due diligence, the manufacturer is not amenable to service of process;

(4) that the manufacturer is unable to satisfy any judgment as determined by the court; or

(5) that the court determines that the manufacturer would be unable to satisfy a reasonable settlement or other agreement with plaintiff.

Subd. 3.Dismissal order prohibited.

A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying defendant even though full compliance with subdivision 1 has been made where the plaintiff can show one of the following:

(1) that the defendant has exercised some significant control over the design or manufacture of the product, or has provided instructions or warnings to the manufacturer relative to the alleged defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage;

(2) that the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage; or

(3) that the defendant created the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage.

Subd. 4.Limiting constructing laws.

Nothing contained in subdivisions 1 to 3 shall be construed to create a cause of action in strict liability in tort or based on other legal theory, or to affect the right of any person to seek and obtain indemnity or contribution.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: In Re Shigellosis Litig., 647 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Shigellosis Litig., 647 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 20× “At the same time, Bix moved for dismissal of strict-liability claims under Minn. Stat. § 544.41 (2000), the "seller's exception" statute, and summary judgment on the remaining claims.”

Masepohl v. Am. Tobacco Co., Inc., 974 F. Supp. 1245 (D. Minnesota 1997). · cites it 14× “See Minn.Stat. § 544.41. A plaintiff may recover against a nonmanufacturer if he can demonstrate: (a) That the defendant has exercised some significant control over the design or manufacture of the product, or has provided instructions or warnings to the manufacturer relative to…”

Gorath v. Rockwell Int'l, Inc., 441 N.W.2d 128 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 16× “Minn.Stat. § 544.41 (1988); see also Steenson, The Anatomy of Products Liability in Minnesota: Principles of Loss Allocation, 6 Wm.”

Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 722 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 8× “Schweichs contend Gibbs-Cook is strictly liable under Minn. Stat. § 544.41 , subd. 3 (1990) because Gibbs-Cook replaced the machine's tracks, adding a ripper attachment, and installed other minor equipment on the D6H.”

Finke v. Hunter's View, Ltd., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D. Minnesota 2009). · cites it 10× “” Minn. Stat. § 544.41 , subd. 2(d). “The seller’s-exception statute, Minn.”

McCormick v. Custom Pools, Inc., 376 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of Custom Pools based on the limited statutory liability of nonmanufacturers under Minn.Stat. § 544.41 (1980). ISSUES 1. Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment against appellant and in favor of respondents on…”

Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., 418 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 1988). · cites it 4× “, the retailer, for dismissal pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 544.41 (1986), which limits the liability of non-manufacturers in products liability actions.”

Block v. Toyota Motor Corp., 665 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 544.41. The court decided that the provisional nature of the dismissal under that statute did not preclude a finding of fraudulent joinder in this case.”

Willmar Poultry Co. v. Carus Chem. Co., 378 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Carus argues that the trial court erroneously relied on Minn.Stat. § 544.41 (1984), which limits nonmanufacturers’ liability in products liability actions.”

Marcon v. Kmart Corp., 573 N.W.2d 728 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “Holding a seller strictly liable in failure to warn cases is consistent with McCormack and Farr as well as Minn.Stat. § 544.41, which states in relevant part: Subdivision 1.”

ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Swenson, 276 F.R.D. 278 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 544.41 , subd. 1. The strict liability claim against the “certifying defendant” may be dismissed only after the plaintiff has filed a complaint against the actual manufacturer.”

Peterson v. Bendix Home Sys., Inc., 318 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 2× “, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 544.41 (1980). The trial court also directed a verdict in favor of the manufacturer Bendix on negligence.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

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.