DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Oklahoma ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Oklahoma

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 Oklahoma products liability law.

I. OKLAHOMA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

Oklahoma products liability claims are governed by common law and statutory provisions found in 76 Okla. Stat. Sections 51-60. Oklahoma has adopted strict products liability following the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A. Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974).

B. Statute of Limitations

Under 12 Okla. Stat. Section 95(A)(3), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is two (2) 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].

Oklahoma applies the discovery rule, which tolls the statute until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and its cause.

C. Statute of Repose

Oklahoma does not have a general statute of repose for products liability claims. However, 12 Okla. Stat. Section 109 provides a ten (10) year statute of repose for claims arising from improvements to real property.

D. Theories of Liability Under Oklahoma Law

Oklahoma recognizes the following theories of products liability:

1. Strict Products Liability:

Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A, as adopted in Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974), a manufacturer or seller is strictly liable for harm caused by a defective product that is unreasonably dangerous.

2. Manufacturing Defect:

A manufacturing defect exists when the specific product departs from its intended design, making it more dangerous than the manufacturer intended. The product is compared against its design specifications.

3. Design Defect:

Oklahoma applies the consumer expectation test for design defects. A product is defectively designed if it is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer with ordinary knowledge common to the community about the product's characteristics. Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974).

Oklahoma courts may also consider risk-utility factors in appropriate cases, including:
- The usefulness and desirability of the product
- The availability of safer substitute products
- The ability to eliminate the danger without impairing usefulness
- The user's ability to avoid danger
- The user's anticipated awareness of the danger
- The feasibility of spreading the risk through pricing or insurance

4. Failure to Warn:

A product may be defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions. Under 76 Okla. Stat. Section 54, a manufacturer has a duty to warn of known dangers and dangers that the manufacturer knew or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care.

Warning Requirements (76 Okla. Stat. Section 54.1):
- The manufacturer has a duty to warn of dangers known at the time of manufacture
- The warning must be adequate and must communicate the nature and extent of the danger
- Compliance with government warning requirements creates a rebuttable presumption of adequacy

5. Negligence:

Oklahoma recognizes negligence claims against manufacturers and sellers for failure to exercise reasonable care in design, manufacture, testing, inspection, and warnings.

6. Breach of Warranty:

Oklahoma recognizes claims for breach of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability (12A Okla. Stat. Section 2-314), and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (12A Okla. Stat. Section 2-315).

E. Comparative Fault

Oklahoma follows modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar under 23 Okla. Stat. Section 13. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. If the plaintiff's fault is 50% or more, recovery is completely barred.

Our client bears no responsibility for this incident and was using the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

F. Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are available in Oklahoma where the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with:
- Reckless disregard for the rights of others
- Intentionally and with malice toward others
- A defendant that has been guilty of conduct evincing a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights of others

23 Okla. Stat. Section 9.1

Punitive Damages Cap: Punitive damages are generally capped at the greater of $100,000 or the amount of actual damages awarded. However, no cap applies if the defendant acted intentionally and with malice. 23 Okla. Stat. Section 9.1(B).

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - CRITICAL NOTICE

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
- Design documents, specifications, and engineering drawings
- Manufacturing records and quality control data
- Testing data and safety assessments
- All versions of warnings, labels, and instructions
- Marketing and advertising materials

Regulatory and Compliance:
- Communications with CPSC, FDA, or other regulatory agencies
- Recall notices and service bulletins
- Adverse event reports and consumer complaints

Claims History:
- Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- Prior complaints regarding similar defects

Oklahoma courts recognize spoliation sanctions and may impose adverse inference instructions for destruction of evidence. Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100, 197 P.3d 12.

III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT

A. Product Identification

B. Chain of Distribution

The following entities are in the chain of distribution and may bear liability under Oklahoma law:

IV. THE DEFECT

A. Nature of Defect

[DESIGN DEFECT / MANUFACTURING DEFECT / FAILURE TO WARN - Select applicable]

[Detailed description of the defect]:

The [Product Name] is defective because [describe specific defect]. This defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.

Consumer Expectation Analysis:

Under Oklahoma's consumer expectation test, this product was defective because:
- The danger was beyond what an ordinary consumer would expect
- The product was more dangerous than intended for its ordinary use
- The risk of [describe danger] was hidden or not apparent to consumers
- [Additional factors]

B. Alternative Safer Design

A feasible alternative design existed at the time of manufacture:

[Describe the alternative safer design that would have prevented injury]

This alternative design was:
- Technologically feasible
- Economically feasible
- Used by competitors or in subsequent models
- Would have prevented our client's injury

V. THE INCIDENT

A. How the Injury Occurred

On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity]:

[Detailed narrative of the incident]

B. Foreseeable Use

Our client was using the product in a manner that was intended or reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. Under Oklahoma law, manufacturers are responsible for injuries from foreseeable uses and misuses.

C. Causation

The defect in the [Product Name] was the direct and proximate cause of our client's injuries under Oklahoma law.

VI. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECT

[If applicable - supports punitive damages claim]

Your company knew or should have known of this defect prior to our client's injury:

• [Number] prior complaints regarding this defect
• [Number] prior injuries caused by this defect
• [Recall or service bulletin information]
• [Regulatory correspondence]
• Internal documents acknowledging the defect

This prior knowledge demonstrates reckless disregard for consumer safety, supporting punitive damages under 23 Okla. Stat. Section 9.1.

VII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES

A. Injuries Sustained

As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained the following injuries:

• [Injury 1]
• [Injury 2]
• [Injury 3]
• [Permanent conditions, if any]

B. Medical Treatment

Emergency Treatment:
- Date: [Date]
- Facility: [Hospital Name]
- Treatment: [Description]

Surgical Treatment:
- Date(s): [Dates]
- Procedures: [Description]

Ongoing Treatment:
- [Current treatment needs]

C. Damages Summary

D. Punitive Damages

[If applicable:]

Your company's conduct demonstrates reckless disregard for consumer safety, warranting punitive damages under 23 Okla. Stat. Section 9.1. We reserve the right to seek punitive damages up to the statutory cap (greater of $100,000 or actual damages).

VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the clear liability under Oklahoma products liability law, the severity of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages incurred, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

B. Time for Response

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 defective product
• Photographs of injuries
• Employment and wage records
• Expert reports (if available)
• Recall notices or safety bulletins (if applicable)
• [Other relevant documentation]

X. CONCLUSION

This case involves a defective product that caused serious injuries to an innocent consumer using the product in a foreseeable manner. Under Oklahoma's adoption of strict products liability, your company is liable for these injuries.

We urge you to evaluate this claim seriously and respond with a reasonable settlement offer. If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the District Court of Oklahoma and pursue this matter through trial.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Oklahoma Bar Association No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
[Co-Counsel, if any]
File

OKLAHOMA PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES

• Restatement (Second) Section 402A: Oklahoma adopted strict products liability through Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974).

• Consumer Expectation Test: Primary test for design defects. Risk-utility factors may be considered in appropriate cases.

• Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Bar): Plaintiff barred if fault is 50% or more. 23 Okla. Stat. Section 13.

• Several Liability: Oklahoma generally follows several liability. Each defendant pays only their proportionate share. 23 Okla. Stat. Section 15.

• No General Statute of Repose: Oklahoma does not have a statute of repose for products liability, except for improvements to real property.

• Punitive Damages: Require clear and convincing evidence. Generally capped at greater of $100,000 or actual damages. 23 Okla. Stat. Section 9.1.

• Rebuttable Presumptions: Under 76 Okla. Stat. Section 54.1, compliance with government warning standards creates a rebuttable presumption of adequate warning.

• State-of-the-Art Defense: Under 76 Okla. Stat. Section 57, evidence that the product was manufactured in conformity with the state of the art is admissible.

• Learned Intermediary Doctrine: Applies to prescription drugs and medical devices in Oklahoma.

• Venue: County where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. 12 Okla. Stat. Section 139.