Jamie Frantom v. Walmart, Inc., et al.

Fayetteville, Arkansas, personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a product liability theory.

Jamie Frantom sued Waltmart and Midea America Corporation on product liability theories.

Midea America Corporation is the U.S. arm of China's global home appliance giant, Midea Group, providing a wide range of affordable, innovative cooling, cooking, laundry, and floor care products, known for its strong R&D, smart tech integration, and focus on user-friendly, sustainable solutions for the American market, headquartered in Parsippany, NJ, with significant R&D in Kentucky.

Who They Are

Subsidiary: The U.S. presence of Midea Group, a Fortune 500, world-leading home appliance manufacturer.

Mission: To provide surprisingly friendly, practical, and affordable home appliance innovations that simplify daily life.

Products & Focus


Extensive Range: Offers air conditioners, refrigerators, dishwashers, laundry machines, small kitchen appliances, and smart home tech.

Innovation: Integrates AI, IoT, and big data for smart, energy-efficient, and sustainable home solutions.

Market Position: A major player known for combining global strength with localized design for U.S. consumers.

Operations in the U.S.

Headquarters: Parsippany, New Jersey.

R&D Hub: A significant research center (MARC) in Louisville, Kentucky, developing products specifically for the U.S. market.

Sales & Service: Maintains a strong distribution network and customer service infrastructure across the U.S..

AI Overview

Arkansas product liability law, primarily governed by the
Arkansas Product Liability Act of 1979, holds manufacturers, distributors, and sellers responsible for injuries from defective products, covering design flaws, manufacturing errors, or inadequate warnings, under theories like strict liability and negligence. Key features include a three-year statute of limitations (with discovery rule), modified comparative negligence (no recovery if 50%+ at fault), and allowing claims for economic loss if the product is unreasonably dangerous.

Key Aspects of Arkansas Product Liability Law

Who Can Be Liable: Manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, and retailers involved in bringing a defective product to market.

Types of Defects:

Design Defects: The product's core design makes it inherently unsafe.

Manufacturing Defects: A flaw in the production process makes a specific unit dangerous.

Marketing Defects: Failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions.
Theories of Liability: Claims can be based on negligence or strict liability, requiring the product to be unreasonably dangerous.

Statute of Limitations: Generally three years from injury or discovery, but exceptions exist.

Comparative Negligence: Arkansas uses a modified comparative fault system; you can't recover damages if you're 50% or more at fault, and damages are reduced proportionally if less than 50% at fault.

Economic Loss Rule: Unlike many states, Arkansas doesn't strictly follow the economic loss rule, allowing claims for product damage if the defect posed an unreasonable danger to people or other property.

How It Works in Practice

Proving Causation: You must show the defect probably caused the harm, not just a possibility.

Manufacturer vs. Seller Duty: Manufacturers have a broad duty to warn, while a seller's duty to warn generally arises if they know or should know the product is dangerous.

Real Estate: Generally exempt, but tangible items installed in real estate (like HVAC) can be considered products.

For specific legal advice, consulting an Arkansas product liability attorney is recommended.

11/03/2025 35 TEXT ONLY Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable Christy D. Comstock: Settlement Conference held on 11/3/2025. (Proceedings held in Fayetteville-via ZOOM) (rg) (Entered: 11/03/2025)

11/03/2025 36 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. Case reassigned to Honorable Christy D. Comstock. Signed by Chief District Judge Timothy L Brooks on November 3, 2025. (Attachments: # 1 Mag Consent)(rg) (Entered: 11/03/2025)

11/04/2025 37 ORAL MOTION to Dismiss. (rg) (Entered: 11/04/2025)

12/18/2025 38 STIPULATION re 37 MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice by WalMart, Inc.. (Galloway, Colt) (Entered: 12/18/2025)

12/19/2025 39 TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 37 Motion to Dismiss. CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on December 18, 2025. (tmc) (Entered: 12/19/2025)