## Facts

- Jeanne Moore (about six feet tall and about 300 pounds) bought a used 2002 Ford Explorer manufactured by Ford Motor Company.
- While stopped to make a left turn, Moore’s vehicle was rear-ended at relatively low speed.
- Moore alleged the driver’s seat collapsed backward on impact, causing her head and shoulders to strike the back seat and resulting in a fractured T9 vertebra and paraplegia.
- Moore claimed Ford provided no warning that the driver’s seat could collapse in a rear-end collision for drivers of her size.
- Moore proceeded on a strict-liability failure-to-warn theory, supported by expert testimony that the seat could fail in mild to moderate rear impacts when occupied by a driver of similar height and weight.
- Moore testified she paid attention to weight-related warnings and would not have purchased the vehicle had she been warned of the seat-collapse risk.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs presented a submissible strict-liability failure-to-warn case where the alleged unreasonable danger arose from the interaction between the product and a foreseeable class of users (large drivers), rather than an independent design or manufacturing defect.
2. Whether plaintiffs had to prove the specific proposed wording of an adequate warning, and show with particularity how that warning would have prevented Moore’s injury, to survive a directed verdict.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri (en banc) reversed the directed verdict for Ford on the strict-liability failure-to-warn claims.
- The court held the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for a jury on unreasonable danger, inadequacy/absence of warning, and causation.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A submissible strict-liability failure-to-warn claim requires evidence that: (1) the defendant sold the product in the course of business; (2) the product was unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use; (3) the defendant failed to provide an adequate warning; (4) the product was used in a reasonably anticipated manner; and (5) the plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of the lack of an adequate warning.
- In failure-to-warn strict liability, a product may be “unreasonably dangerous” due to absent or inadequate warnings even if the product is not defectively designed or manufactured; the danger may stem from users being unable to make an informed choice.
- A product may be rendered unreasonably dangerous for a foreseeable class of users based on user characteristics that heighten risk.
- Causation in a warning case may be shown by evidence supporting a reasonable inference that an adequate warning would have changed the plaintiff’s behavior in a way that avoided the harm (including choosing not to purchase the product).
- Where no warning was given, Missouri law does not require the plaintiff to present the exact hypothetical text of an adequate warning to reach the jury; warning adequacy and causal effect are generally jury questions on an adequate evidentiary record.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence of an unwarned seat-collapse risk affecting a foreseeable class of large drivers, combined with testimony that an adequate warning would have changed the purchase decision, was enough to submit strict-liability failure-to-warn claims to a jury, and it rejected a requirement that plaintiffs prove the precise wording of a proposed warning at the directed-verdict stage.


Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. 2011) (en banc)