Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.760 (2026)

Products liability claim defined

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

537.760. Products liability claim defined. — As used in sections 537.760 to 537.765, the term "products liability claim" means a claim or portion of a claim in which the plaintiff seeks relief in the form of damages on a theory that the defendant is strictly liable for such damages because:

(1) The defendant, wherever situated in the chain of commerce, transferred a product in the course of his business; and

(2) The product was used in a manner reasonably anticipated; and

(3) Either or both of the following:

(a) The product was then in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use, and the plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of such defective condition as existed when the product was sold; or

(b) The product was then unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use without knowledge of its characteristics, and the plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of the product being sold without an adequate warning.

--------

(L. 1987 H.B. 700 § 33)

Effective 7-01-87

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 63 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Peters v. Gen. Motors Corp., 200 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peters v. Gen. Motors Corp., 200 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 22× “Peters' behalf against GM on a strict products liability theory as authorized by section 537.760, [3] alleging, inter alia, that: (1) the cruise control system installed in the Cutlass was defectively designed in that it had a propensity to cause sudden and unwanted…”

Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. 1999). · cites it 14× “” On the face of its jurisdictional statement, 1 as well as under the “Points Relied On” in its brief, Suzuki challenges the constitutional validity of three Missouri statutes: section 537.760, RSMo 1994 (stating the elements of a products liability claim); section 510.”

Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “[109] Section 537.760, RSMo 2000, states: As used in sections 537.”

Poage v. Crane Co., 523 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “Strict Products Liability Claims To determine whether a plaintiff has made a submissible case based on a strict products liability claim, Missouri applies the test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402(A), which is codified by § 537.760. Engel v. Corrigan Co. Mech.…”

Miller v. Varity Corp., 922 S.W.2d 821 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20× “Defendant's Appeal Plaintiffs submitted their case under Missouri's products liability statute, § 537.760, RSMo 1994, which codifies Restatement 2d of Torts § 402A.”

Engel v. Corrigan Co.-Mech. Contractors, Inc., 148 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “(“Corrigan”) in their wrongful death action based on section 537.760 RSMo 1 (strict liability).”

Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 207 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “5 To further strengthen this point, the Missouri Supreme Court declared: In addition to the force of precedent that Nesselrode and Newman rejected the risk-utility approach, any further consideration of risk-utility was effectively foreclosed by the enactment of section 537.760,…”

Williams v. Bayer Corp., 541 S.W.3d 594 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.760 . Thus, her claim is not analogous to the "fraud-on-the-FDA" theory that was rejected in Buckman and is instead grounded on a well-established duty imposed on manufacturers by Missouri state law to warn consumers about the risks of using their…”

Mulligan v. Truman Med. Ctr., 950 S.W.2d 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 14× “300 provides that the strict liability provision of § 537.760 “shall not apply to actions” under Chapter 538, this language prohibits strict products liability claims against health care providers, such as Truman Medical Center.”

Hedglin v. Stahl Specialty Co., 903 S.W.2d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “[1] All sectional references are to Missouri Revised Statutes 1994, unless otherwise indicated.”

Bell v. Poplar Bluff Physicians Grp., Inc., 879 S.W.2d 618 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Liability under that theory can occur absent malpractice, negligence, error, or mistake.”

Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 13 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “2004); section 537.760. Doncasters does not dispute the first and third elements and argues only that there was no substantial evidence that the accident was caused by a defect in the CT-blades that existed at the time they were sold.”

Show all 63 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.760(3) — 1 case

Poage v. Crane Co., 523 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). “Strict Products Liability Claims To determine whether a plaintiff has made a submissible case based on a strict products liability claim, Missouri applies the test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402(A), which is codified by § 537.760. Engel v. Corrigan Co. Mech.…”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.760(3)(a) — 2 cases

Peters v. Gen. Motors Corp., 200 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). “Peters' behalf against GM on a strict products liability theory as authorized by section 537.760, [3] alleging, inter alia, that: (1) the cruise control system installed in the Cutlass was defectively designed in that it had a propensity to cause sudden and unwanted…”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.760(3)(b) — 2 cases

Michael J. Nolte & Barbie Nolte v. Ford Motor Co., 458 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

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.