Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • R
  • Richter v. Limax InternationalRichter v. Limax International
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Richter v. Limax International

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
45 F.3d 1464 (1995)


Dearmedia Richter (plaintiff) purchased a mini-trampoline manufactured by Limax International (Limax) (defendant) for the purpose of exercising, specifically jogging. However, over time Richter began to experience significant pain after using the product and was later diagnosed with having stress fractures in both of her ankles. Richter filed suit in federal district court against Limax, asserting claims of strict products liability and negligence for the company’s failure to provide an adequate warning. The box containing the mini-trampoline did have a sticker affixed that stated the product was only to be used as an exercise device and not for acrobatics or any springboard type activities. At trial, Richter provided expert testimony that simple tests conducted by Limax would have revealed that, based upon the design of the product, repetitive jogging by a consumer would have placed significant stress on the individual’s feet and lower legs. Limax conceded that it conducted no tests, but noted that Richter’s complaint of stress fractures was the first the company had heard of. In a special verdict, the jury found that the mini-trampoline was not defectively designed, yet concluded that Limax was liable under strict liability and negligence for its failure to warn. The jury awarded Richter damages over $450,000, reduced by Richter’s percentage of fault of 38 percent. The district court granted Limax’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law, concluding that Limax had no duty to warn because Richter had failed to prove that Limax had knowledge of the danger of stress fractures or that the danger was known in the state of the art. The district court further held that under Kansas law, Limax had no duty to warn about dangers it might have discovered by conducting reasonable tests on the product. Richter appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Lay, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial