## Facts

- Dea Richter bought a Limax mini-trampoline on February 1, 1989 to exercise, specifically to jog.
- The product packaging included no instructions; the only warning was a sticker stating the device was for exercise and not for acrobatics, trampolining, or springboard-type activities.
- Richter used the mini-trampoline for jogging only, increasing use to about 60 minutes per day until March 10, 1989.
- On March 11, 1989, Richter experienced severe ankle pain; a physician diagnosed stress fractures in both ankles, and Richter claimed she had to stop working as a sales representative.
- Richter sued Limax in federal court (diversity) asserting strict liability and negligence based on defective design and failure to warn.
- At trial, Richter presented expert testimony that simple testing would have shown the device’s design could subject users’ feet and lower legs to repetitive stress that could cause stress fractures during jogging.
- Limax admitted it performed no tests and had not previously received stress-fracture complaints.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding no design defect but finding Limax liable under strict liability and negligence for failure to warn, awarding $472,712 in damages reduced by 38% comparative fault.
- The district court granted Limax judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), holding there was no duty to warn absent actual knowledge or “state of the art” knowledge of the danger and that Kansas law imposed no duty to warn of dangers discoverable by reasonable testing.

## Issues

1. Under Kansas products-liability law, does a manufacturer’s duty to warn extend to hazards it should have known through ordinary care and reasonable testing, or only to hazards actually known or recognized in the “state of the art”?
2. Did the district court err in granting JMOL and setting aside the jury’s failure-to-warn verdict?

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the JMOL and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict and enter judgment on that verdict.
- The court held the district court applied an incorrect, overly narrow Kansas duty-to-warn standard.
- The court concluded sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Limax failed to warn of a foreseeable hazard discoverable through reasonable testing for the product’s exercise use, including jogging.

## Legal Principles

- Under Kansas law, a manufacturer must warn of dangers it knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, including dangers that reasonable testing or investigation would reveal.
- The duty to warn is tied to foreseeable hazards associated with intended or reasonably anticipated uses of the product.
- Manufacturers need not test for inconceivable dangers or every conceivable danger, but must conduct reasonable testing to identify foreseeable risks.
- JMOL is improper where, under the correct legal standard and viewing the evidence favorably to the verdict, a reasonable jury could find liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that Kansas products-liability law imposes a duty to warn based on what a reasonable manufacturer should know through ordinary care and reasonable testing, not solely on actual or industry-recognized knowledge, and it reinstated the jury’s failure-to-warn verdict after concluding the district court’s JMOL rested on an incorrect legal standard.


Richter v. Limax Int'l, Inc., 45 F.3d 1464 (10th Cir. 1995)