the Brand Manufacturers that arise under Ohio law. 16. Oklahoma The Tenth Circuit affirmed two federal district courts construing Oklahoma law and rejecting the notion that a brand name drug manufacturer can be held liable when the plaintiff ingested only the manufacturer’s competitors’ drugs. Schrock, 601 F.Supp.2d at 1266; Schrock v. PLIVA USA Inc., CIV-08-453-M, 2011 WL 6122768 (W.D.Okla. Dec. 8, 2011) affd sub nom. Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir.2013). These courts noted that for both strict liability and negligence theories of liability, Oklahoma courts require a relationship between the defendant company and the product at issue. Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273, 1282 (10th Cir.2013) (citing Kirkland v. Gen. Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1362 (Okla.1974) (<HOLDING>); Spence v. Brown-Minneapolis Tank, Co., 198
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 the plaintiff must first establish that the product left the sellers hands in a defective condition after which the seller may introduce evidence that its product was substantially altered after leaving its possession which evidence may rebut or overcome the plaintiffs showing that his injuries were a result of the products defect recognizing strict product liability actions holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective