Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 03-27-2023

Case Style:

Ryan Miller v. Titan Tire Corporation of Freeport

Case Number: 2:22-CV-2046

Judge: P.K. Holmes, III

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Sebastian County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:




Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan


Click Here For The Best Fort Smith Product Liability Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.




Defendant's Attorney: John Earl Tull, III and Vincent Chadick

Description: Fort Smith, Arkansas personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a product liability theory.

This case was filed in the Circuit Court of Sebastian County, 66FCV-21-00461, and was removed to federal court by the Defendant.

In Arkansas, a product liability action may be based on negligence or strict liability and may include claims of design defect; manufacturing defect; or failures of warning, instruction, and marketing.


Justia › US Law › US Codes and Statutes › Arkansas Code › 2017 Arkansas Code › Title 16 - Practice, Procedure, and Courts › Subtitle 7 - Particular Proceedings and Remedies › Chapter 116 - Products Liability › Subchapter 2 - Arkansas Product Liability Act of 1979
There is a newer version of this Subchapter
View our newest version here
2017 Arkansas Code
Title 16 - Practice, Procedure, and Courts
Subtitle 7 - Particular Proceedings and Remedies
Chapter 116 - Products Liability
Subchapter 2 - Arkansas Product Liability Act of 1979


(a)

(1) In determining the liability of the manufacturer, the state of scientific and technological knowledge available to the manufacturer or supplier at the time the product was placed on the market, rather than at the time of the injury, may be considered as evidence.

(2) Consideration may also be given to the customary designs, methods, standards, and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting, and testing by other manufacturers or sellers of similar products.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to an action based on express warranty or misrepresentation regarding the product.

(a) Compliance by a manufacturer or supplier with any federal or state statute or administrative regulation existing at the time a product was manufactured and prescribing standards of design, inspection, testing, manufacture, labeling, warning, or instructions for use of a product shall be considered as evidence that the product is not in an unreasonably dangerous condition in regard to matters covered by these standards.

(b) Supplying of a product after its anticipated life may be considered as a defense by the manufacturer as between the manufacturer and supplier if the product is supplied after the expiration date placed on the product by the manufacturer as required by law.

(c) Use of a product beyond its anticipated life by a consumer where the consumer knew or should have known the anticipated life of the product may be considered as evidence of fault on the part of the consumer.

Outcome: 03/27/2023 24 STIPULATION re 23 Stipulation OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE TO RE-FILING (SUBSTITUTED) by Titan Tire Corporation, Titan Tire Corporation of Freeport. (Chadick, Vincent) (Entered: 03/27/2023)
03/27/2023 25 CLERK'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL: re 24 Stipulation filed by Titan Tire Corporation of Freeport, Titan Tire Corporation. THIS CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (mjm) (Entered: 03/27/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: