ELEMENTS OF AN INADEQUATE WARNING CLAIM UNDER THE LOUISIANA PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACT

ELEMENTS OF AN INADEQUATE WARNING CLAIM UNDER THE LPLA

I. claimant sustains damages caused by a characteristic of a product
AND
II. damages arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product

–use or handling of a product that the product’s manufacturer should reasonably expect of an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances

AND
III. damage causing characteristic of the product is unreasonably dangerous
a. characteristic existed at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer
OR
b. characteristic resulted from a reasonably anticipated alteration or modification of the product

–a change in a product that the product’s manufacturer should reasonably expect to be made by an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances, and also means a change arising from ordinary wear and tear, but not because the product does not receive reasonable care and maintenance

BUT reasonably anticipated alterations or modifications of the product does not mean:

i) alteration, modification or removal of an otherwise adequate warning provided about a product, or

OR
ii) the failure of a person or entity, other than the manufacturer of a product, reasonably to provide to the product user or handler an adequate warning that the manufacturer provided about the product, when the manufacturer has satisfied his obligation to use reasonable care to provide the adequate warning by providing it to such person or entity rather than to the product user or handler
AND

IV. manufacturer failed to use reasonable care to provide an adequate warning of the damage causing characteristic and its danger to users and handlers of the product
BUT an adequate warning is not required if:

a. the product is not dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or handler of the product, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the product’s characteristics
OR
b. The user or handler of the product already knows or reasonably should be expected to know of the characteristic of the product that may cause damage and the danger of such characteristic.

UNLESS the manufacturer proves that at the time the product left his control he did not know and, in light of then-existing reasonably available scientific and technological knowledge, could not have known of the characteristic that caused the damage or the danger of such characteristic
BUT a manufacturer of a product who, after the product has left his control, acquires knowledge of a characteristic of the product that may cause damage and the danger of such characteristic, or who would have acquired such knowledge had he acted as a reasonably prudent manufacturer, is liable for damage caused by his subsequent failure to use reasonable care to provide an adequate warning of such characteristic and its danger to users and handlers of the product