Section 57.2 - Rebuttable presumptions - Grounds for rebutting - Liability of product sellersA. In a product liability action brought against a product manufacturer or seller, there is a rebuttable presumption that the product manufacturer or seller is not liable for any injury to a claimant caused by some aspect of the formulation, labeling, or design of a product if the product manufacturer or seller establishes that the formula, labeling, or design for the product complied with or exceeded mandatory safety standards or regulations adopted, promulgated, and required by the federal government, or an agency of the federal government, that were applicable to the product at the time of manufacture and that governed the product risk that allegedly caused harm.B. The claimant may rebut the presumption in subsection A of this section by establishing that: 1. The mandatory federal safety standards or regulations applicable to the product and asserted by the defendant as its basis for rebuttable presumption were inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or damage; or2. The manufacturer, before or after marketing the product, withheld or misrepresented information or material relevant to the federal government's or agency's determination of adequacy of the safety standards or regulations at issue in the action.C. In a product liability action brought against a product manufacturer or seller, there is a rebuttable presumption that the product manufacturer or seller is not liable for any injury to a claimant allegedly caused by some aspect of the formulation, labeling, or design of a product if the product manufacturer or seller establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the product was subject to premarket licensing or approval by the federal government, or an agency of the federal government, that the manufacturer complied with all of the government's or agency's procedures and requirements with respect to premarket licensing or approval, and that after full consideration of the product's risks and benefits the product was approved or licensed for sale by the government or agency. The claimant may rebut this presumption by establishing that: 1. The standards or procedures used in the particular premarket approval or licensing process were inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or damage; or2. The manufacturer, before or after premarket approval or licensing of the product, withheld from or misrepresented to the government or agency information that was material and relevant to the performance of the product and was causally related to the claimant's injury.D. This section does not extend to manufacturing flaws or defects even though the product manufacturer has complied with all quality control and manufacturing practices mandated by the federal government or an agency of the federal government, or if the product becomes the subject of a recall, or is no longer marketed, pursuant to any order, consent decree, or agreement between the manufacturer and any federal agency.E. No product liability action may be asserted against a product seller other than the manufacturer, unless:1. The product seller exercised substantial control over the aspect of the design, testing, manufacture, packaging, or labeling of the product that caused the alleged harm for which recovery of damages is sought; or2. The product seller altered or modified the product, and the alteration or modification was a substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery of damages is sought; or3. The product seller made an express warranty as to such product independent of any express warranty made by a manufacturer as to such product, such product failed to conform to the product seller's warranty, and the failure of such product to conform to the warranty caused the harm complained of by the claimant; or4. The claimant is unable, despite a good-faith exercise of due diligence, to identify the manufacturer of the product; or5. The manufacturer is not subject to service of process under the laws of the state; or6. The court determines that the claimant would be unable to enforce a judgment against the manufacturer.F. In a claim against a seller in a product liability action, discovery shall initially be limited to issues related to subsection E of this section.G. A product seller other than a manufacturer is liable to a claimant on the basis of negligence if the claimant establishes that:1. The product seller sold the product involved in such action;2. The product seller did not exercise reasonable care: a. in assembling, inspecting, or maintaining such product, orb. in passing on warnings or instructions from such product's manufacturer about the dangers and proper use of such product; and3. Such failure to exercise reasonable care was a proximate cause of the harm complained of by the claimant.Okla. Stat. tit. 76, § 57.2
Added by Laws 2014 , c. 217, s. 1, eff. 11/1/2014.