Okla. Stat. tit. 76, § 76-57.2

Liability of product sellers.

A. 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; or

2. 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

Oklahoma Statutes - Title 76. Torts Page 42

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; or

2. 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; or

2. 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; or

3. 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; or
tial factor in causing the

harm for which recovery of damages is sought; or

3. 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; or

4. The claimant is unable, despite a good-faith exercise of due

diligence, to identify the manufacturer of the product; or

5. The manufacturer is not subject to service of process under

the laws of the state; or

6. 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, or

Oklahoma Statutes - Title 76. Torts Page 43

b. in passing on warnings or instructions from such

product's manufacturer about the dangers and proper

use of such product; and

3. Such failure to exercise reasonable care was a proximate

cause of the harm complained of by the claimant.