155 F.4th 652
6th Cir.2025Background
- Between 2011–2021 Kia and Hyundai produced millions of vehicles lacking engine immobilizers and having easily compromised ignition assemblies, making them quickly and cheaply stealable.
- Thieves (notably teenagers) began targeting these models, and social-media videos in 2022 amplified a nationwide surge in thefts and joyriding.
- Two consolidated suits: estate of Matthew Moshi (killed) and Donald Strench (seriously injured) sued Kia and Hyundai under the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA), alleging design defects, manufacturing defect, inadequate warning/instruction, and nonconformance to representations.
- District court dismissed all claims for failure to plead proximate causation, relying on Ohio "key-in-the-car" precedents that bar owner liability for harms caused by a thief’s negligent driving.
- Sixth Circuit (majority) reversed dismissal of design-defect and warning claims (proximate causation plausibly pleaded from manufacturer perspective) but affirmed dismissal of manufacturing-defect and nonconformance claims; remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a manufacturer can be held liable under OPLA when a third party steals and then negligently operates the vehicle | Manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known theft would lead to accidents (industry standards, federal anti-theft rule, theft statistics) so third-party driving is foreseeable and does not break causation | Ross/Pendrey bar liability as a matter of law because a thief’s negligent driving is an efficient intervening cause; policy disfavors making parties insurers | Held for plaintiffs on proximate-causation at pleading stage: Ross/Pendrey view from ordinary owner does not control manufacturer-focused OPLA foreseeability analysis; claims survive factual development |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded a manufacturing defect under OPLA | Vehicles deviated from safe expectations by lacking immobilizers and having weak ignitions | Defect alleged is uniform design choice, not a production aberration | Held for defendants: manufacturing-defect claims dismissed (allegations fit design-defect theory) |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded nonconformance to an express manufacturer representation | Plaintiffs point to general assurances of safety and comparability to other cars | No specific, material express safety representation alleged; allegations are conclusory | Held for defendants: nonconformance claims dismissed for failure to allege an express representation |
| Whether inadequate warnings/instructions were plausibly pleaded and causation alleged | Failure to warn purchasers about theft susceptibility and prevention measures; OPLA presumes inadequate warnings cause injury unless rebutted | Manufacturer argues plaintiffs fail to allege that a warning would have altered consumer behavior (proximate causation) | Held for plaintiffs: warning claims survive because OPLA presumes causal link and complaints do not rebut that presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Nutt, 203 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1964) (owner leaving key in car — thief’s negligent driving breaks causal chain; policy-based refusal to make owner an insurer)
- Pendrey v. Barnes, 479 N.E.2d 283 (Ohio 1985) (reaffirming Ross; statistical evidence of stolen-vehicle accident rates insufficient to impose owner liability)
- Queen City Terminals, Inc. v. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp., 653 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio 1995) (intervening-cause analysis; foreseeability and new/independent action framework)
- Fed. Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin Constr. Co., 543 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio 1989) (third-party acts need not sever causation when they are among hazards making defendant negligent)
- Sutowski v. Eli Lilly & Co., 696 N.E.2d 187 (Ohio 1998) (OPLA causation principles)
- R.H. Macy & Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 554 N.E.2d 1313 (Ohio 1990) (manufacturer liability where vandalism/tampering did not necessarily bar recovery)
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 2002) (manufacturer practices that facilitate criminal misuse may state OPLA-related claims)
- McFarland v. Bruno Mach. Corp., 626 N.E.2d 659 (Ohio 1994) (caution about extending negligence-policy rules into product-liability context)
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 423 N.E.2d 467 (Ohio 1981) (foreseeability as central to proximate-cause inquiry)