United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
SHARION AYCOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Harvey filed her Complaint , and Amended Complaint  in
this Court seeking damages from the manufacturer, sellers,
and importers of a pressure cooker that she alleges exploded
and injured her. Plaintiff Harvey has not yet served the
manufacturer, Guangdong Kisense Co. The other Defendants,
Golden Dragon Sourcing, Seventh Avenue, and National Quality
Products filed a Motion to Dismiss  all of the
Plaintiff's claims against them. In response, the
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint . In her
Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff abandoned four of the
five claims she previously asserted.
Plaintiff's sole remaining claim alleges that the
pressure cooker was defective. The crux of the moving
Defendants' argument for dismissal is that the Plaintiff
failed to allege a defect in the product with sufficient
specificity as required for such claims under the Mississippi
Products Liability Act, Mississippi Code Annotated §
plaintiff's complaint “must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Phillips v.
City of Dallas, Tex., 781 F.3d 772, 775-76 (5th Cir.
2015) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007))). A claim is facially plausible when the
pleaded factual content “allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678,
129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127
S.Ct. 1955). “[P]laintiffs must allege facts that
support the elements of the cause of action in order to make
out a valid claim.” Webb v. Morelia, 522 F.
App'x 238, 241 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting
City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.,
632 F.3d 148, 152-53 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
plaintiff to prevail on a design defect claim in Mississippi,
she must prove the following elements, as summarized by the
Mississippi Supreme Court, by a preponderance of the
The danger presented by the product's design was known or
should have been known to the manufacturer [or seller] (i.e.,
the danger was foreseeable); (2) the product failed to
function as expected (as a result of a design
characteristic); (3) an alternative design existed that would
not impair the product's usefulness or desirability; and
(4) the alternative design would have to a reasonable
probability prevented the harm.
Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton, 94 So.3d 1051, 1060
(Miss. 2012) (quoting Williams v. Bennett, 921 So.2d
1269, 1274 (Miss. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted));
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1- 63(a)(1)(i), (iii), (f)(i)-(ii).
Plaintiff's design defect claim, as plead, satisfies the
above standard because she alleges each element of a design
defect claim under the MPLA. The Plaintiff alleges several
defects in the design of the pressure cooker, including
defects in the steam release valve, the cooker lid, and the
lid locking mechanism, and that the pressure cooker failed to
function as expected. See Austin v. Bayer Pharms.
Corp., No. 5:13CV28, 2013 WL 5406589, at *5 (S.D.Miss.
Sept. 25, 2013) (in a design defect claim, plaintiff must
identify some defect in design of product to survive Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); Adams v. Energizer Holdings,
Inc., No. 3:12CV797, 2013 WL 179137 3, at *2 (S.D.Miss.
Apr. 19, 2013); Deese v. Immunex Corp., No.
3:11-CV-373-DPJ-FKB, 2012 WL 463722, at *3 (S.D.Miss. Feb.
13, 2012). The Plaintiff also alleges that the defect
proximately caused the injury for which she is seeking
recovery. See Adams, 2013 WL 1791373, at *2 (in a
design defect claim, plaintiff must allege that the alleged
defect proximately caused the harm for which recovery is
sought); Chatman v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 5:11CV69, 2013
WL 1305506, at *4 (S. D. Miss. Mar. 28, 2013). Finally,
Plaintiff alleges that a feasible design alternative existed
that would have to a reasonable probability prevented the
harm. See Adams, 2013 WL 1791373, at *2 (in a design
defect claim, plaintiff must allege that a feasible
alternative design exists); Chatman, 2013 WL
1305506, at *4. Because the Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, curing any potential pleading defects in her
original complaint by sufficiently alleging a design defect
claim under Mississippi law, the moving Defendants'
motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
of the reasons fully explained above, the moving
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss  is DENIED as MOOT
without prejudice to refiling of the same.