## Facts

- Roberta M. Latham worked at a Wal-Mart store managed by Charles Bezoni.
- On or about January 22, 1987, Roberta requested that the store specially order a parrot, an item the store did not normally sell.
- The parrot was delivered to the store on or about February 24, 1987; Roberta picked it up within about 30 minutes of notification.
- The Lathams alleged the parrot was infected with psittacosis, a disease transmissible to humans.
- James D. Latham alleged he contracted psittacosis from the parrot, suffering pneumonic symptoms and claimed permanent impairment, mental anguish, and related damages; Roberta claimed loss of consortium.
- The Lathams sued Wal-Mart and Bezoni on a strict products-liability theory, alleging the parrot was defective and unreasonably dangerous when sold.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart and Bezoni; after settlement and dismissal of remaining defendants, the Lathams appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs opposing summary judgment in a Missouri strict products-liability action must present admissible, non-conclusory facts showing a defect existed at the time of sale and caused the plaintiff’s injury.
2. Whether the plaintiffs’ affidavit and submissions created a genuine issue of material fact on the elements of strict liability for an allegedly diseased parrot sold through a retailer.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Wal-Mart and Bezoni.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to submit competent, admissible evidence establishing genuine disputes on the required strict-liability elements, including defect/unreasonable danger at the time of sale and causation.
- Conclusory assertions in an affidavit, without adequate factual and expert support linking the bird’s condition at sale to the illness, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- In Missouri, strict products liability requires proof that: (1) the defendant sold the product in the course of business; (2) the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use; (3) the product was used in a reasonably anticipated manner; and (4) the plaintiff was directly damaged by the defective condition existing at the time of sale.
- Under Missouri summary-judgment practice, once the movant makes a prima facie showing, the nonmovant must respond with specific facts that would be admissible in evidence; pleadings, speculation, and conclusory affidavits do not create a genuine issue of material fact.
- Where defect-at-sale and medical causation depend on technical matters, the opposing party must supply competent evidence (often medical or veterinary) connecting the alleged defect to the injury and fixing the defect’s existence at the time of sale.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because the plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions, chiefly a conclusory affidavit, did not provide admissible facts sufficient to show that the parrot was defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time of sale or that the alleged defect caused James Latham’s illness, as required to proceed under Missouri strict products liability.


Latham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 818 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)