DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF MISSOURI
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Missouri ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Missouri
DATE: [Date]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
[General Counsel / Risk Management / Claims Representative]
[Manufacturer / Distributor / Retailer Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
RE: PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date]
Product: [Product Name, Model Number, Serial Number]
Manufacturer: [Manufacturer Name]
Purchase Date/Location: [Date / Retailer Name]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Dear [Recipient Name]:
This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with serious personal injuries caused by a defective [Product Name] designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by your company. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement under Missouri law.
I. MISSOURI-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Products Liability Theories Recognized
Missouri recognizes the following theories of products liability:
1. Strict Liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A)
Missouri adopted strict products liability in Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. 1969). Under Missouri law, one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is subject to liability for physical harm caused thereby.
2. Negligence
Traditional negligence claims are available for design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. 1986).
3. Breach of Warranty
Express and implied warranties under the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code (Mo. Rev. Stat. Sections 400.2-313 through 400.2-315) provide additional bases for recovery.
B. Design Defect Standard
Missouri applies a consumer expectation test as the primary standard for design defect cases. Under Keener, a product is defective if it is "unreasonably dangerous" - meaning "dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics."
Missouri courts have also considered risk-utility factors in evaluating design defects, particularly in complex product cases. Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. 1986).
C. Statute of Limitations
Under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 516.120, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is five (5) years from the date of injury.
This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
D. Statute of Repose
Under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 516.105, Missouri has a twelve (12) year statute of repose for products liability claims involving capital goods (defined as machinery, equipment, or fixtures used in commerce or industry).
For consumer products, there is no general statute of repose.
E. Comparative Fault
Missouri follows pure comparative fault under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 537.765. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is never completely barred regardless of the plaintiff's degree of fault.
Our client bears no responsibility for this incident. Our client:
- Used the product for its intended purpose
- Followed all instructions and warnings
- Acted as a reasonable consumer would
F. Punitive Damages
Under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 510.265, punitive damages are available upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with:
- Evil motive, or
- Reckless indifference to the rights of others
Punitive Damages Cap: Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 510.265 caps punitive damages at the greater of:
- $500,000, or
- Five times the net amount of the judgment awarded to the plaintiff
G. Crashworthiness Doctrine
Missouri recognizes the "crashworthiness" or "enhanced injury" doctrine, which holds manufacturers liable for injuries caused or enhanced by defective product design in foreseeable circumstances. Polk v. Ford Motor Co., 529 F.2d 259 (8th Cir. 1976) (applying Missouri law).
H. Sophisticated User Defense
Missouri recognizes the sophisticated user defense for failure to warn claims. If the user is a professional with specialized knowledge of the product's risks, the duty to warn may be reduced or eliminated. Kozeny-Wagner, Inc. v. Shark, 709 S.W.2d 149 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - SPOLIATION WARNING
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this product and claim, including but not limited to:
Product-Related:
- The subject product and all component parts
- All exemplar products of the same make and model
- Design documents, specifications, and engineering drawings
- Manufacturing records and quality control documents
- Testing data and safety assessments
- FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documents
- Owner's manuals, instructions, warnings, and labels
- Marketing and advertising materials
Complaints and Claims:
- Consumer complaints involving this product or similar products
- Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- Regulatory correspondence (CPSC, FDA, NHTSA)
- Recall notices and service bulletins
Missouri courts recognize spoliation sanctions. Baldridge v. Director of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). Destruction of evidence may result in adverse inferences and other sanctions.
III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT
A. Product Identification
| Product Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Product Name | [Full Product Name] |
| Manufacturer | [Manufacturer Name and Address] |
| Model Number | [Model Number] |
| Serial Number | [Serial Number] |
| Date of Manufacture | [Date, if known] |
| Lot/Batch Number | [If known] |
| Date of Purchase | [Purchase Date] |
| Retailer/Seller | [Retailer Name and Location] |
| Purchase Price | $[Amount] |
B. Chain of Distribution
The following entities are in the chain of distribution and may bear liability under Missouri law:
| Entity | Role |
|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer |
| [Distributor Name] | Distributor |
| [Retailer Name] | Retailer/Seller |
C. Product Description
[Describe the product, its intended use, and relevant safety considerations]
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect
[SELECT AND CUSTOMIZE APPLICABLE THEORY:]
DESIGN DEFECT:
The [Product Name] contains a design defect that renders it unreasonably dangerous under Missouri's consumer expectation test. The product was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when using it in its intended manner.
[Detailed description of design defect]
A feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented the injury:
[Describe alternative design]
MANUFACTURING DEFECT:
The specific [Product Name] involved departed from its intended design due to a manufacturing defect:
[Detailed description of manufacturing defect]
FAILURE TO WARN:
The manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings regarding known risks:
[Describe inadequate warnings and what adequate warnings should have stated]
V. THE INCIDENT
A. How the Injury Occurred
On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was using the [Product Name] for its intended purpose when [describe what happened].
[Detailed narrative of the incident]
B. Foreseeable Use
Our client was using the product:
- For its intended purpose
- In accordance with provided instructions
- In a manner consistent with product marketing
- As a reasonable consumer would
C. Causation
The defect was the direct and proximate cause of our client's injuries. The injuries would not have occurred but for the defect.
VI. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Liability
Under Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. 1969), your company is strictly liable because:
- The product was in a defective condition when it left your control
- The defect made the product unreasonably dangerous
- The defect caused our client's injuries
- Our client suffered damages
B. Negligence
Your company was negligent in:
- Designing a product with an unreasonable risk of harm
- Failing to adequately test the product
- Failing to provide adequate warnings
- Failing to implement adequate quality control
C. Breach of Warranty
The product breached:
- Express Warranty: [Describe any express warranties]
- Implied Warranty of Merchantability: Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 400.2-314
- Implied Warranty of Fitness: Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 400.2-315
D. Comparative Fault
Our client exercised all reasonable care and bears no percentage of fault for this incident. Under Missouri's pure comparative fault system, even if your company attempts to allocate fault, our client is entitled to full recovery.
VII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES
A. Physical Injuries
As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:
[List specific injuries with diagnoses]
B. Medical Treatment
Emergency Treatment:
- Date: [Date]
- Facility: [Hospital Name]
- Treatment: [Description]
Subsequent Treatment:
[Detail all treatment received]
C. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]
D. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL | $[Total] |
E. Non-Economic Damages
[Describe pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life]
Missouri does not cap non-economic compensatory damages in products liability cases.
F. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES | $[Total] |
G. Punitive Damages
[If applicable:]
Your company's conduct demonstrates evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others warranting punitive damages under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 510.265:
[Describe conduct supporting punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence]
VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability and substantial damages, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
This demand will remain open for forty-five (45) days from the date of this letter, expiring on [Expiration Date].
IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
- Medical records and bills
- Photographs of the product and defect
- Photographs of injuries
- Employment and wage documentation
- Expert reports (if available)
- Product documentation and warnings
- [Other relevant documentation]
X. CONCLUSION
This case involves a defective product that caused serious injuries to our client. Liability is clear under Missouri products liability law, and damages are substantial. We urge you to evaluate this claim seriously and respond with a fair settlement offer.
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the Circuit Court of [County], Missouri, and pursue this matter through trial.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Missouri Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
File
MISSOURI-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
Five-Year Statute of Limitations: Missouri has a longer limitations period than most states.
Twelve-Year Statute of Repose: Applies only to capital goods used in commerce or industry, not consumer products.
Pure Comparative Fault: Missouri allows recovery even if plaintiff is more at fault than defendant - only reduced by percentage of fault.
Consumer Expectation Test: Primary test for design defects, though risk-utility factors may also be considered.
Punitive Damages: Capped at greater of $500,000 or 5x net judgment. Require clear and convincing evidence.
Expert Testimony: Required to establish defect and causation in most cases.
St. Louis and Kansas City Venues: These jurisdictions are known for plaintiff-friendly juries.
Prejudgment Interest: Available under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 408.040.