Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPPLY CHAIN LIABILITY ISSUES—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—W.D. Okla.: Claims against Home Depot move forward in part in refrigerator handle injury case, (Oct 22, 2025)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

A consumer’s general negligence claim proceeded because he sufficiently alleged that his injuries were caused by the product seller’s breach of its duty to use reasonable care during delivery and installation.

In an action brought against a refrigerator seller by a man who suffered injuries in a fall when his freezer’s handle detached while opening, a federal district court in Oklahoma partly granted the seller’s partial motion to dismiss. The product liability claims under both strict liability and negligence theories were dismissed without prejudice because Oklahoma law bars product liability actions against product sellers, the consumer failed to establish that any statutory exception applied, discovery could not be granted allow the consumer to discover whether he had a viable claim, and the complaint did not allege that the seller negligently “assembled, inspected, or maintained” the refrigerator (Rose v. Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-589-SLP (W.D. Okla. Oct. 20, 2025)).

Background. In November 2020, a man purchased a General Electric refrigerator unit from Home Depot, which was then installed in his home by the store’s agent/employee. A year later, he attempted to open the refrigerator’s freezer drawer when the drawer handle suddenly detached, causing him to fall and suffer bodily injuries. He brought suit against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc and the refrigerator’s manufacturer, Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. (GE Appliances) for negligence, product liability, and breach of express and/or implied warranty of merchantability. The store moved to dismiss the negligence and product liability claims.

Negligence. Home Depot believed that the complaint allegations pertaining to negligence were conclusory and insufficient. “Under Oklahoma law, all negligence claims require proof of a duty, a breach of that duty, and causation.” Recker v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 491 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1032-33 (W.D. Okla. 2020). The man’s complaint alleged that Home Depot owed him a duty to use reasonable care in the delivery and installation of the refrigerator units, it breached this duty, and its employee’s failure to properly install the refrigerator caused the freezer handle to detach. These events resulted in his injuries even though he was using the product in a “reasonable and foreseeable manner.” The court found that these allegations were sufficient for his general negligence claim to survive.

Legal standard. Oklahoma law prohibits bringing a product liability action against a product seller other than the manufacturer unless (1) the seller exercised substantial control over the product aspect which caused the alleged harm; (2) the seller’s alteration or modification was a substantial factor in causing the harm; (3) the seller independently made an express warranty and the product’s failure to conform to it caused the harm; (4) the product manufacturer cannot be identified; (5) the manufacturer is not subject to service under state law; or (6) the claimant would be unable to enforce a judgment against the manufacturer. Okla. Stat. tit. 76 § 57.2(E).

Product liability. Home Depot asserted that none of the alleged facts placed it in any of the enumerated § 57.2(E) exceptions. The man responded by requesting further discovery to determine if the store fell into any exception. The court relied on Shelton v. Sha Ent., LLC, No. CIV-20-644-D, 2020 WL 6389858, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 30, 2020) which held that “[d]iscovery is authorized solely for parties to develop the facts in a lawsuit in which a plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim, not in order to permit a plaintiff to find out whether he has such a claim.” Seeking discovery as to the § 57.2(E) exceptions was treated as a failure to allege facts sufficient under a Twombly motion to dismiss standard. This court found Shelton persuasive and noted that the consumer did not assert any facts that would allow him to bring suit against Home Depot. His proposition that the potential presence of a Chinese designer or manufacturer that may not be “subject to service of process” under Oklahoma law did not entitle him to discovery, especially since the manufacturer was known and named. As such, he failed to allege a viable strict product liability claim.

Next, a product seller may only be liable under a negligence theory if it sold the product; failed to exercise reasonable care in assembling, inspecting, maintaining, or adequately warning about such product,and such failure was the proximate cause of the harm. Okla. Stat. tit. 76 § 57.2(G). While the consumer alleged that Home Depot delivered and installed the refrigerator, and that the freezer’s defect caused his injuries, he failed to allege that Home Depot negligently “assembled, inspected, or maintained” the refrigerator. As such, the second requirement of § 57.2(G) was not fulfilled. To the extent he sought to assert a product liability claim under a negligence theory, the claim was dismissed without prejudice.

The case is No. 5:24-cv-589-SLP.

Judge: Palk, S.

Attorneys: Thomas J. Steece (Oklahoma Legal Services PLLC) for Mickey Rose. Hailey M. Hopper (Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green) for Home Depot USA Inc. Amber D. Nelson (Goolsby, Proctor, Heefner & Gibbs, PC) for Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc. a/k/a GE Appliances d/b/a GE Appliances.

Companies: Home Depot USA Inc.; Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc. a/k/a GE Appliances d/b/a GE Appliances

MainStory: TopStory CourtDecisions SCLIssuesNews HouseholdProductsNews DesignManufacturingNews OklahomaNews