Missouri "Innocent Seller" Statute Inapplicable When Third-Party Complaint Defendants Are Only Recourse Left

Kyle and Annaleah Justice originally sued Bestway, USA Inc. and Rural King Holdings after their two-year-old daughter drowned in an above ground pool that was sold by Rural King. The suit alleged a design defect for the pool, where a nylon strap ran along the outside of the pool roughly 14.5 inches from the ground. This strap allegedly allowed the daughter to climb from the ground into the pool with no way of climbing out as the manufacturer made the pool with a removable ladder that was not attached at the time the child climbed the nylon strap and entered the pool. Plaintiffs further alleged that Rural King, which sold them the pool, was aware of the defect, having assembled the same model of pool for a display at their store in Warren County, Missouri.

Bestway and Rural King brought third-party premises liability claims against the grandparents, who owned the pool, and Rural King also brought Bestway, Hong Kong, into the suit. Bestway, Hong Kong was the actual manufacturer of the pool, while Bestway, USA was the customer support arm in the United States for the Hong Kong operation.

Under Missouri’s innocent seller statute (R. S. Mo. §537.762), the seller of a product may escape liability by showing that another defendant that is properly before the court can provide the plaintiffs with total recovery on their claims, according to the order. Here, however, District Judge Fleissig noted that the pool’s actual manufacturer, Bestway, Hong Kong, was only in the case as a third-party defendant after the filing of Rural King’s third-party complaint. And as such, the third-party defendants did not constitute another defendant properly before the court who could conceivably provide the plaintiffs with total recovery on their claims. Specifically, the court noted that Rural King had no explanation for how the claims would survive under the third-party complaint if Rural King were removed from the litigation.

Rural King was granted summary judgment on the negligent failure to warn claim, with the Court stating that the pictures Rural King used in its advertisements were not sufficient to give Rural King notice of any defective condition of the pool. Additionally, Rural King had no duty to check the website safeproducts.gov, as it was undisputed there were no reports about the pool in question and reports on the website are not independently verified in any way. Warranty claims made by the Plaintiffs also failed against Rural King also failed as the Court noted any express warranty was in the pool’s manual, which was written by Bestway, not Rural King.

Clients should be aware that the inclusion of additional parties to a lawsuit through third-party complaints is not sufficient to grant shelter under Missouri’s innocent seller statute. The inclusion of such parties, while generally sound for contribution purposes, will not allow a defendant to escape liability entirely when it comes to product defects and liability.