cause tardive dyskinesia if consumed for a lengthy period of time and the companies’ failure to provide adequate warnings and labeling relating to this risk. Thus, from a factual perspective, Plaintiffs claims arise from “personal injury ... caused by or resulting from the manufacture ... formula, ... testing ... warning, instruction, ... or labeling” of metoclopramide. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-116-102(5). Accordingly, irrespective of the theory of liability, this can only be termed a “product liability action.” A basic requirement of products-liability actions under Arkansas law is product identification, i.e. that the actual product manufactured or distributed by the defendant caused injury to the plaintiff. See Chavers v. General Motors Corp., 349 Ark. 550, 563, 79 S.W.3d 361, 370 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Based on the broad definition of a “product
holding plaintiff could not prevail on productsliability action where there was no proof he used defendants product holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control holding that trial court may not consider whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail holding that there could be no risk of spillover evidence where there was significant proof that both defendants participated in all the transactions holding that plaintiff could not prevail as a thirdparty beneficiary where contract was not valid