Product Liability Complaint - Oklahoma

PRODUCT LIABILITY COMPLAINT — OKLAHOMA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. Background Facts
4. Count I — Manufacturers' Products Liability: Manufacturing Defect
5. Count II — Manufacturers' Products Liability: Design Defect
6. Count III — Manufacturers' Products Liability: Failure to Warn
7. Count IV — Negligence
8. Damages
9. Prayer for Relief
10. Demand for Trial by Jury
11. Reservation of Rights
12. Signature and Service Blocks
13. Verification
14. Certificate of Service
15. Oklahoma Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY NAME] COUNTY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

CASE NO. [________________________________]

PETITION (PRODUCT LIABILITY — PERSONAL INJURY)

ATTORNEY'S LIEN CLAIMED — JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, complaining of Defendants, alleges and states as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is a natural person and a citizen and resident of [COUNTY] County, Oklahoma, and was so at all times relevant to this action.

1.2. Defendant [MANUFACTURER NAME] ("Manufacturer") is a [STATE] [corporation / limited liability company] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS]. Manufacturer designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and placed into the stream of commerce the [PRODUCT NAME / MODEL NUMBER] (the "Product") that is the subject of this action.

1.3. Defendant [SELLER NAME] ("Seller") is a [STATE] [corporation / limited liability company] authorized to do business in Oklahoma and at all relevant times sold, distributed, or placed the Product into the stream of commerce in [COUNTY] County, Oklahoma.

1.4. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of this Court and is greater than $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's fees.

1.5. The acts and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in [COUNTY] County, Oklahoma, where Plaintiff was injured by the Product. Venue is proper under 12 O.S. § 134 and, as to corporate Defendants, under 12 O.S. § 137.

1.6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(F) (Oklahoma long-arm statute) because Defendants transact business in Oklahoma, placed the Product into the stream of commerce knowing it would be sold and used in Oklahoma, and the cause of action arises from such conduct.

3. BACKGROUND FACTS

2.1. On or about [DATE], Plaintiff [purchased / acquired / encountered] the Product, a [BRIEF DESCRIPTION — make, model, serial number], from [POINT OF SALE / SUPPLY CHAIN ORIGIN].

2.2. The Product was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants in the regular course of their respective businesses.

2.3. At the time the Product left Defendants' control, it was in substantially the same condition in which it reached Plaintiff. The Product was not materially altered, modified, or changed by any intervening party between the time it left Defendants' control and the time of Plaintiff's injury.

2.4. Plaintiff used the Product in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable and consistent with its intended purpose and the instructions accompanying it.

2.5. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], while Plaintiff was using the Product as intended and as reasonably foreseeable, the Product [DESCRIBE FAILURE — e.g., "unexpectedly malfunctioned, causing [INJURY MECHANISM]"] (the "Incident").

2.6. As a direct and proximate result of the Incident, Plaintiff suffered serious bodily injury, including [DESCRIBE INJURIES — e.g., fractures, burns, amputation, traumatic brain injury], requiring emergency medical care at [HOSPITAL] and ongoing medical treatment.

2.7. The injuries were caused by defects in the Product as further described below, and not by any conduct of Plaintiff or any third party.

4. COUNT I — MANUFACTURERS' PRODUCTS LIABILITY: MANUFACTURING DEFECT

3.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1.1 through 2.7 as though fully set forth herein.

3.2. Oklahoma recognizes the cause of action for "manufacturers' products liability" against any seller of a defective product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 1974 OK 52, 521 P.2d 1353 (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A).

3.3. To prevail on a manufacturing-defect claim, Plaintiff must show (a) the Product was the cause of the injury; (b) the defect existed at the time the Product left the manufacturer's possession and control; and (c) the defect made the Product unreasonably dangerous. Kirkland, 521 P.2d at 1363.

3.4. The Product, as manufactured, deviated materially from Manufacturer's design specifications, manufacturing standards, and substantially identical units of the same product line. Specifically, the Product [DESCRIBE DEVIATION — e.g., "had a weld that failed below the rated load," "contained a substandard component," "was missing a guard required by the design specifications"].

3.5. This manufacturing deviation rendered the Product defective and unreasonably dangerous to a foreseeable user.

3.6. The defect existed when the Product left Manufacturer's possession and control and was the direct and proximate cause of the Incident and Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

5. COUNT II — MANUFACTURERS' PRODUCTS LIABILITY: DESIGN DEFECT

4.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1.1 through 3.6 as though fully set forth herein.

4.2. Under Oklahoma law, a product is defective in design when it is "more dangerous than would be expected by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." Lamke v. Futorian Corp., 1985 OK 47, 709 P.2d 684, 686; OUJI-CIV No. 12.3.

4.3. The Product was designed in a manner that made it more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when using it for its intended and reasonably foreseeable purposes. Specifically, the design [DESCRIBE DESIGN FLAW — e.g., "lacked a properly engineered safety interlock," "concentrated stress at a point of foreseeable failure," "permitted ignition under normal operating temperatures"].

4.4. At the time of design and manufacture, a safer alternative design existed that was technologically and economically feasible and would have prevented or substantially reduced the risk of Plaintiff's injuries without impairing the Product's utility. The safer alternative design includes, but is not limited to, [DESCRIBE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE].

4.5. The defective design rendered the Product unreasonably dangerous and was the direct and proximate cause of the Incident and Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

6. COUNT III — MANUFACTURERS' PRODUCTS LIABILITY: FAILURE TO WARN

5.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1.1 through 4.5 as though fully set forth herein.

5.2. A manufacturer has a duty to provide adequate warnings of dangers known or knowable in light of the generally recognized and prevailing scientific and technical knowledge available at the time of manufacture and distribution. Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 1992 OK 97, 833 P.2d 284; OUJI-CIV No. 12.4.

5.3. The Product was unreasonably dangerous because Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions concerning [DESCRIBE THE HAZARD — e.g., "the risk of catastrophic battery failure during charging," "the propensity of the device to overheat under normal load," "the toxicity of by-products generated during normal use"].

5.4. The danger was known or reasonably knowable to Defendants at the time the Product was placed into the stream of commerce, and the danger was not open, obvious, or generally known to the ordinary user.

5.5. Adequate warnings would have caused Plaintiff to alter Plaintiff's use of the Product or to refrain from using it, thereby preventing the Incident.

5.6. Defendants' failure to warn was the direct and proximate cause of the Incident and Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. COUNT IV — NEGLIGENCE

6.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1.1 through 5.6 as though fully set forth herein.

6.2. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, marketing, distribution, and sale of the Product.

6.3. Defendants breached that duty by, among other things:

• Negligently designing the Product;
• Negligently manufacturing, assembling, or fabricating the Product;
• Failing to perform adequate testing and quality-control inspection;
• Failing to warn of dangers known or reasonably knowable;
• Failing to recall or retrofit the Product after Defendants knew or should have known of its dangerous condition; and
• Failing to comply with applicable industry standards and federal regulatory requirements.

6.4. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages described herein.

6.5. Plaintiff's recovery on this Count is subject to Oklahoma's modified comparative-negligence statute, 23 O.S. § 13, which bars recovery only if Plaintiff's negligence is of greater degree than the combined negligence of all parties causing the damage. Plaintiff was not negligent or, alternatively, was less negligent than Defendants.

8. DAMAGES

7.1. Economic Damages: past and future medical expenses; past lost wages; future loss of earning capacity; rehabilitation expenses; assistive-device and home-modification costs; and incidental out-of-pocket expenses.

7.2. Non-Economic Damages: physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, scarring and disfigurement, permanent impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life.

7.3. Punitive Damages: Pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages because Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the rights of others or, alternatively, intentionally and with malice. Defendants' conduct was egregious in that [DESCRIBE — e.g., "Defendants knew of prior similar failures and concealed them," "Defendants suppressed internal testing data demonstrating the defect"].

9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

• A. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, in excess of $75,000.00;
• B. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter similar conduct, pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1;
• C. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rates allowed by law, including 12 O.S. § 727.1;
• D. For costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees where authorized by statute, contract, or equity;
• E. For an attorney's lien upon any judgment or settlement pursuant to 5 O.S. § 6; and
• F. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

10. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2038 and the Oklahoma Constitution, Article II, § 19, Plaintiff demands trial by jury of twelve (12) on all issues so triable.

11. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Petition pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2015 to assert additional claims, identify Doe Defendants, or add parties as continuing investigation and discovery may warrant.

12. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], OBA No. [####]

[CO-COUNSEL NAME], OBA No. [####] (if applicable)

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Facsimile: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. VERIFICATION

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

COUNTY OF [____________________]

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath, state that I am the Plaintiff in the above-styled cause; that I have read the foregoing Petition; and that the matters and facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME]

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public

(My Commission Expires: [__/__/____])

(Commission No.: [________________])

14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION was served upon the following, together with summons issued by the Court Clerk, by [method — process server / certified mail RRR / sheriff]:

[SERVICE LIST WITH NAMES, ADDRESSES, REGISTERED-AGENT INFORMATION]

[________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

15. OKLAHOMA PRACTICE NOTES

• Manufacturers' Products Liability ("MPL"). Oklahoma adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A in Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 1974 OK 52, 521 P.2d 1353. The cause of action sounds in tort, not contract or warranty, and is independent of negligence. Kirkland identifies three elements: causation, defect existing at the time the product left the manufacturer's control, and unreasonable danger.
• Design-defect test. The consumer-expectation test articulated in Lamke v. Futorian Corp., 1985 OK 47, 709 P.2d 684, governs design-defect claims. The plaintiff must show the product was more dangerous than the ordinary consumer would expect. Practitioners should consult current OUJI-CIV instructions for the controlling formulation.
• Failure-to-warn / learned intermediary. For prescription drugs and medical devices, the manufacturer's warning duty runs to the prescribing healthcare professional, not the patient. McKee v. Moore, 1982 OK 71, 648 P.2d 21; Edwards v. Basel Pharms., 1997 OK 22, 933 P.2d 298.
• Used-product sellers. A commercial seller of a used product is generally not subject to MPL where the seller did not create the defect and the product is sold in essentially the same condition as when acquired. Allenberg v. Bentley Hedges Travel Serv., Inc., 2001 OK 22, 22 P.3d 223.
• Statute of limitations. Two (2) years from the date of injury under 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3). The discovery rule applies for latent defects.
• Statute of repose. Oklahoma has NO general products statute of repose. The repose provision for improvements to real property, 12 O.S. § 109 (ten years), applies to design/construction-of-improvement claims and has been invoked in asbestos-in-buildings litigation.
• Comparative fault. Oklahoma applies modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar under 23 O.S. § 13. Recovery is barred only if the plaintiff's negligence is "of greater degree than" the combined negligence of those causing the damage. Practitioners should examine whether Oklahoma applies comparative fault to MPL/strict-liability claims (which historically Kirkland held it did not) and to what extent contemporary doctrine treats unforeseeable misuse, alteration, or assumption of risk as defenses or apportionment factors.
• Punitive damages. Governed by 23 O.S. § 9.1, which authorizes a bifurcated proceeding and tiered caps based on Category I (reckless disregard), II (intentional and malicious), or III (life-endangering felony) findings.
• Noneconomic-damages cap. Section 23 O.S. § 61.2 was held unconstitutional as a special law in Beason v. I.E. Miller Servs., Inc., 2019 OK 28, 441 P.3d 1107. Verify status before trial.
• Pleading. Oklahoma applies a Twombly-influenced plausibility standard; bare-bones pleadings risk dismissal under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6).
• Service. Serve corporate defendants on their registered agent under 18 O.S. § 1022 / 12 O.S. § 2004(C). Foreign manufacturers may require service under the Hague Service Convention.

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 12 O.S. § 95 — https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-12/section-12-95/
• 12 O.S. § 109 — https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-12/section-12-109/
• 23 O.S. § 13 — https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-23/section-23-13/
• 23 O.S. § 9.1 (Punitive damages)
• Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 1974 OK 52, 521 P.2d 1353 — https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1974/42673.html
• Lamke v. Futorian Corp., 1985 OK 47, 709 P.2d 684
• McKee v. Moore, 1982 OK 71, 648 P.2d 21 — https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1982/5261.html
• Allenberg v. Bentley Hedges Travel Serv., Inc., 2001 OK 22, 22 P.3d 223
• Edwards v. Basel Pharms., 1997 OK 22, 933 P.2d 298
• Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 1992 OK 97, 833 P.2d 284
• Beason v. I.E. Miller Servs., Inc., 2019 OK 28, 441 P.3d 1107
• Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions — Civil (OUJI-CIV) — https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/start.asp?viewType=OUJI-CIV
• Oklahoma State Courts Network — https://www.oscn.net/
• Oklahoma Statutes (Title 12, 23) — https://www.oklegislature.gov/osstatuestitle.aspx
• Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Oklahoma must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.