Products Liability in Missouri

Keener v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. Sep 08, 1969)

What is the procedural history?

What is the product?

What is Dayton and what is it's relationship with the product?

Who installed the pump?

Where was it installed and what was it's function?

What did the installer do which may have contributed to the eventual accident?

What was in the basement on Sept. 21, 1965?

What does that tell us about the sump pump?

How did plaintiff first try to clean up the mess?

What protective gear did Harold wear when starting to work on the sump pump?

What happened when he raised the pump from the water and why?

Is this a Darwin award case?

What is the alleged defect in the pump?

What is the formulation of 402a adopted by the court?

What the three reasons that the Court adopted 402a?

Why does it matter whether this is a tort case or a contracts case?

Why can Dayton be held liable when it did not manufacture the product?

What does the Restatement (it is in a comment to 402a) say about whether Harold is a proper plaintiff?

Why doesn't Harold's negligence in handling the pump affect his recovery?

What would defendant have to show to have Harold's actions found an assumption of risk?

What did Harold not know that was critical, even if we assume he knew the risks of electricity and water?

What was wrong with Instruction 3?

What would the correct instruction look like?

What will Dayton be entitled to ask the jury about Harold's actions?