{"data":{"id":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-76-76-57.2","jurisdiction":"us-ok","citation":"Okla. Stat. tit. 76, § 76-57.2","heading":"Rebuttable presumptions – Grounds for rebutting –","body":"Liability of product sellers.\n\nA. In a product liability action brought against a product\n\nmanufacturer or seller, there is a rebuttable presumption that the\n\nproduct manufacturer or seller is not liable for any injury to a\n\nclaimant caused by some aspect of the formulation, labeling, or\n\ndesign of a product if the product manufacturer or seller\n\nestablishes that the formula, labeling, or design for the product\n\ncomplied with or exceeded mandatory safety standards or regulations\n\nadopted, promulgated, and required by the federal government, or an\n\nagency of the federal government, that were applicable to the\n\nproduct at the time of manufacture and that governed the product\n\nrisk that allegedly caused harm.\n\nB. The claimant may rebut the presumption in subsection A of\n\nthis section by establishing that:\n\n1. The mandatory federal safety standards or regulations\n\napplicable to the product and asserted by the defendant as its basis\n\nfor rebuttable presumption were inadequate to protect the public\n\nfrom unreasonable risks of injury or damage; or\n\n2. The manufacturer, before or after marketing the product,\n\nwithheld or misrepresented information or material relevant to the\n\nfederal government's or agency's determination of adequacy of the\n\nsafety standards or regulations at issue in the action.\n\nC. In a product liability action brought against a product\n\nmanufacturer or seller, there is a rebuttable presumption that the\n\nproduct manufacturer or seller is not liable for any injury to a\n\nclaimant allegedly caused by some aspect of the formulation,\n\nlabeling, or design of a product if the product manufacturer or\n\nseller establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the\n\nproduct was subject to premarket licensing or approval by the\n\nfederal government, or an agency of the federal government, that the\n\nmanufacturer complied with all of the government's or agency's\n\nprocedures and requirements with respect to premarket licensing or\n\napproval, and that after full consideration of the product's risks\n\nand benefits the product was approved or licensed for sale by the\n\ngovernment or agency. The claimant may rebut this presumption by\n\nestablishing that:\n\n1. The standards or procedures used in the particular premarket\n\napproval or licensing process were inadequate to protect the public\n\nfrom unreasonable risks of injury or damage; or\n\n2. The manufacturer, before or after premarket approval or\n\nlicensing of the product, withheld from or misrepresented to the\n\ngovernment or agency information that was material and relevant to\n\nthe performance of the product and was causally related to the\n\nclaimant's injury.\n\nD. This section does not extend to manufacturing flaws or\n\ndefects even though the product manufacturer has complied with all\n\nquality control and manufacturing practices mandated by the federal\n\ngovernment or an agency of the federal government, or if the product\n\nbecomes the subject of a recall, or is no longer marketed, pursuant\n\nto any order, consent decree, or agreement between the manufacturer\n\nand any federal agency.\n\nE. No product liability action may be asserted against a\n\nproduct seller other than the manufacturer, unless:\n\n1. The product seller exercised substantial control over the\n\naspect of the design, testing, manufacture, packaging, or labeling\n\nof the product that caused the alleged harm for which recovery of\n\ndamages is sought; or\n\n2. The product seller altered or modified the product, and the\n\nalteration or modification was a substantial factor in causing the\n\nharm for which recovery of damages is sought; or\n\n3. The product seller made an express warranty as to such\n\nproduct independent of any express warranty made by a manufacturer\n\nas to such product, such product failed to conform to the product\n\nseller's warranty, and the failure of such product to conform to the\n\nwarranty caused the harm complained of by the claimant; or\ntial factor in causing the\n\nharm for which recovery of damages is sought; or\n\n3. The product seller made an express warranty as to such\n\nproduct independent of any express warranty made by a manufacturer\n\nas to such product, such product failed to conform to the product\n\nseller's warranty, and the failure of such product to conform to the\n\nwarranty caused the harm complained of by the claimant; or\n\n4. The claimant is unable, despite a good-faith exercise of due\n\ndiligence, to identify the manufacturer of the product; or\n\n5. The manufacturer is not subject to service of process under\n\nthe laws of the state; or\n\n6. The court determines that the claimant would be unable to\n\nenforce a judgment against the manufacturer.\n\nF. In a claim against a seller in a product liability action,\n\ndiscovery shall initially be limited to issues related to subsection\n\nE of this section.\n\nG. A product seller other than a manufacturer is liable to a\n\nclaimant on the basis of negligence if the claimant establishes\n\nthat:\n\n1. The product seller sold the product involved in such action;\n\n2. The product seller did not exercise reasonable care:\n\na. in assembling, inspecting, or maintaining such\n\nproduct, or\n\nb. in passing on warnings or instructions from such\n\nproduct's manufacturer about the dangers and proper\n\nuse of such product; and\n\n3. Such failure to exercise reasonable care was a proximate\n\ncause of the harm complained of by the claimant.","path":["OK Code","Title 76"],"source_url":"https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os76.pdf","current_through":"2026-08-14","vintage":"open-us-law v2026.08, retrieved 2026-09-14","retrieved_at":"2026-09-14T18:32:36Z","sha256":"5daad3fc6615d52a9ee71a0c20e8c56e39194189e1fcc1f607a68a3607625893","source_id":"us-ok","stale":false,"prev":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-76-76-57.1","next":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-76-76-58.1"},"notice":"GroundRules: Original legal text. Not legal advice."}