537.764. State of the art, defined — affirmative defense in cases of strict liability for failure to warn — burden of proof on party asserting defense — action for negligence, when. — 1. As used in this section, "state of the art" means that the dangerous nature of the product was not known and could not reasonably be discovered at the time the product was placed into the stream of commerce.
2. The state of the art shall be a complete defense and relevant evidence only in an action based upon strict liability for failure to warn of the dangerous condition of a product. This defense shall be pleaded as an affirmative defense and the party asserting it shall have the burden of proof.
3. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the rights of an injured party to maintain an action for negligence whenever such a cause of action would otherwise exist.
4. This section shall not be construed to permit or prohibit evidence of feasibility in products liability claims.
Notes of Decisions
Davis v. Dunham's Athleisure Corp., 362 F. Supp. 3d 651 (E.D. Mo. 2019).
· cites it 5× “Century asserts that it was likely a gunsmith would have noticed the mis-assembly issues upon inspection, but that assumes the inspection followed after plaintiff attempted to clean the rifle and reassemble it.”
Hopfer v. Neenah Foundry Co., 477 S.W.3d 116 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “765! (codifying the comparative fault affirmative defense) precludes the availability of other affirmative defenses in strict liability claims, including the compliance with contract speéifícations defense, Hopfer reasoned that because Sections 537.764 and 537.765 are the only…”
Stanger v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Mo. 2005).
“§ 537.764. [4] Plaintiffs however, once again *981 argue that there is a dispute as to the date the insert was sold.”
Meyer Ex Rel. Meyer v. Astrazeneca Pharm., L.P., 224 S.W.3d 106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “The Court gave a failure to warn verdict director, and an instruction in compliance with Section 537.764 RSMo (2000), state of the art.”
Mulligan v. Truman Med. Ctr., 950 S.W.2d 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “762 provides that “a defendant whose liability is based solely on his status as a seller in the stream of commerce” may be dismissed from a products liability action if another defendant is in the case from whom full recovery can be made.”
Norman Hopfer & Terri Hopfer v. Neenah Foundry Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 5× “Hopfer reasoned that because Sections 537.764 and 537,765 are the only statuforily-created express affirmative defenses in strict products liability claims, Missouri law recognizes only those two affirmative defense and no others.”
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.