In Justice v. Bestway (USA) Inc., et. Al., Case No. No. 4:22-cv-00050-AGF (USDC ED MO, August 8, 2024), a Missouri federal judge trimmed the bulk of a couple’s claims against the retailer that sold the pool in which their two-year-old daughter drowned, but ruled that the retailer could not escape strict liability claims under the state’s “innocent seller” statute. Here, Third-Party Defendant grandmother Mary Flake purchased an above-ground pool from the Rural King store in Wentzville, Missouri. Mrs. Flake did not speak to any Rural King employees about the pool before she purchased it. Her sole considerations when purchasing the pool were its size and price. It was a cylindrical pool with a diameter of 22 feet and a height of 52 inches. When constructed, a nylon strap runs along the entirety of the pool’s exterior wall about 14.25 inches off the ground. The unattended decedent child used the strap to climb into the pool (when the ladder was not attached) and her parents sued the retailer Rural King as well as the importer.
Rural King later added the manufacturer as a third-party defendant and moved for summary judgment under Missouri’s version of the retailer’s act claiming that the manufacturer was “before the court” and able to satisfy any recovery. The court disagreed because the manufacturer was only a third-party defendant and would be gone from the case if Rural King was out. The motion for summary judgment on the strict liability count was thus denied.
But the court dismissed the express warranty claim because the plaintiff parents were not the purchaser and, also, because there was no evidence that Rural King made any express warranty that the grandmother relied upon. Similarly, it also granted summary judgment on the implied warranty claim because the plaintiffs were unable to show that the pool was “unfit for the purpose for which it was designed, i.e., to hold water for recreational use.”