## Facts

- The Missouri State Highway Patrol purchased contour-style, concealable bullet-resistant vests manufactured by Armour of America, Inc.
- Trooper Jimmy Linegar was shot and killed on April 15, 1985, during a routine traffic stop when a suspect fired an automatic weapon.
- Linegar was wearing the Armour contour-style vest, which used front and back panels connected by Velcro under the arms.
- The panels did not meet at the wearer’s sides, leaving an uncovered area under the arms when worn.
- Multiple shots struck the vest; none penetrated or caused injury where the vest covered the body.
- Linegar’s fatal injuries were caused by bullets striking uncovered areas, including a bullet entering through the exposed side gap and piercing his heart.
- Linegar’s family sued Armour in a diversity action, alleging the vest’s design was defective and unreasonably dangerous under Missouri strict products-liability law.
- A jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded $1.5 million; Armour appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the contour-style vest was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous under Missouri strict products-liability law when its side gap was apparent and the vest performed as designed.
2. Whether a manufacturer of protective equipment must market the safest available design (such as a wrap-around vest) rather than offering designs with visible coverage limitations and tradeoffs.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment for the plaintiffs and directed entry of judgment for Armour.
- The court held that, as a matter of law, the vest was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous under Missouri law.
- The vest performed exactly as an ordinary consumer would expect by stopping bullets that struck the protected areas.
- The uncovered side area was an obvious feature, and ordinary consumers would not expect protection for body parts the vest plainly did not cover.
- Missouri strict liability did not require Armour to sell only the safest possible design when the product’s limitations were open and purchasers could choose among alternatives.

## Legal Principles

- Under Missouri strict products liability for design defect, a plaintiff must prove the product was sold in the course of business, was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to reasonably anticipated use, was used in a reasonably anticipated manner, and caused damage as a direct result of the defective condition existing at sale.
- A product is “unreasonably dangerous” only if it is dangerous beyond what an ordinary consumer would contemplate, with ordinary community knowledge about its characteristics.
- When a product’s design limitation is open and obvious and the product performs consistently with that visible design, a court may find no defect and no unreasonable danger as a matter of law.
- Strict products liability does not impose a categorical duty to design and market only the maximum-protection version of a product when consumers can plainly observe coverage limits and select among different designs.

## Conclusion

The court set aside a jury’s design-defect verdict because the vest stopped every bullet that hit its protective panels and its uncovered side gap was obvious; under Missouri’s consumer-expectation standard, the vest was not unreasonably dangerous and Armour was not required to sell only a wrap-around design.


Linegar v. Armour of Am., Inc., 909 F.2d 1150 (8th Cir. 1990)