law-product-liability | consumer law cases | defective design | manufacturing defect |
unreasonable risk | obvious danger | causality causal link |
PRODUCT LIABILITY
To recover for a products liability claim alleging a design defect, a plaintiff must prove that
(1) the product was defectively designed so as to render it unreasonably dangerous; (2) a safer
alternative design existed; and (3) the defect was a producing cause of the injury for which the
plaintiff seeks recovery. Hernandez v. Tokai Corp., 2 S.W.3d 251, 256-57 (Tex. 1999); Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.005(a); see also McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 787
(Tex. 1967) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)).Timpte Industries, Inc. v.
Gish, No. 08-0043 (Jun. 5, 2009) (Medina)(product liability, Supreme Court finds no defect in design of
trailer from which worker fell)
To determine whether a product was defectively designed so as to render it unreasonably dangerous,
Texas courts have long applied a risk-utility analysis that requires consideration of the following factors:
(1) the utility of the product to the user and to the public as a whole weighed against the gravity and
likelihood of injury from its use; (2) the availability of a substitute product which would meet the same
need and not be unsafe or unreasonably expensive; (3) the manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the
unsafe character of the product without seriously impairing its usefulness or significantly increasing its
costs; (4) the user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability
because of general public knowledge of the obvious condition of the product, or of the existence of
suitable warnings or instructions; and (5) the expectations of the ordinary consumer.
American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 432 (Tex. 1997); see also Hernandez, 2 S.W.3d at
256 (citing Turner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 847 (Tex. 1979)).
RECENT PRODUCT LIABILITY DECISIONS OF THE TEXAS SUPREME
COURT (Tex. 2011-2008)
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Garza, No. 09-0073 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011)(Opinion by Justice Nathan Hecht)
(Vioxx judgment through out, causation proof found wanting)
Respondents contend that Vioxx, a prescription drug, caused their decedent's death. In Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner,[1] we set requirements for determining whether epidemiological
evidence is scientifically reliable to prove causation. The parties here dispute what those requirements
are, whether they apply in this case, and whether they were satisfied. We hold that Havner's
requirements apply and were not met, and that the evidence was therefore legally insufficient to prove
causation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals[2] and render judgment that
respondents take nothing.
MERCK & CO., INC. v. FELICIA GARZA, ET AL.; from Starr County; 4th district (04-07-00234-CV, 277
SW3d 430, 12-10-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Willett and Justice Guzman not sitting)
Link to e-briefs: MERCK & CO., INC. v. GARZA
Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter, No. 09-0039 (Tex. June 17, 2011)(Johnson)(product liability)
Six-year-old Brittany Carter was burned when her five-year-old brother accidently set fire to her dress with a BIC lighter.
The trial court entered judgment against BIC based on jury findings that the lighter was defectively designed and
manufactured and that each of the defects caused Brittany’s injuries. The court of appeals affirmed based on the
defective design finding and did not reach BIC’s other issues. BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 171 S.W.3d 657, 662 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi 2005), rev’d 251 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2008). In a prior appeal we held that the design defect claim was
preempted by federal law and remanded the case to the court of appeals. BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 251 S.W.3d 500, 511
(Tex. 2008). The court of appeals then affirmed the trial court’s judgment based on the manufacturing defect finding.
___ S.W.3d ___. We conclude that no evidence supports the finding that a manufacturing defect caused Brittany’s
injuries. We reverse and render judgment for BIC.
Conclusion. The facts of this case are unfortunate. Nevertheless, we must apply established legal principles in
reviewing the parties’ positions. In applying those principles, we conclude there is legally insufficient evidence to
support the finding that manufacturing defects in BIC’s Subject Lighter were a cause-in-fact of Brittany’s injuries. We
reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for BIC.
BIC PEN CORPORATION v. JANACE M. CARTER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF BRITTANY CARTER; from Matagorda County;
13th district (13-03-00560-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-18-05) 2 petitions
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Green not sitting)
See E-briefs in 09-0039 BIC PEN CORP. v. CARTER
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, No. 08-0175 (Tex. Dec. 11, 2009)(Johnson)
(product liability suit, design defect, laundry dryer fire, expert testimony)(judgment on jury verdict
reversed)
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION v. MARGARITA CAMACHO, ET AL.; from Hidalgo County;
13th district (13-05-00361-CV, 251 SW3d 88, 01-17-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Phil Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court [in pdf]
(Justice Guzman not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION v. CAMACHO
Timpte Industries, Inc. v. Gish, No. 08-0043 (Jun. 5, 2009) (Medina)
(product liability, Supreme Court finds no defect in design of trailer from which worker fell)
TIMPTE INDUSTRIES, INC. AND TIMPTE INC. v. ROBERT GISH AND PINNACOL ASSURANCE; from Hale
County; 7th district (07-06-00215-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-30-07) The Court reverses the court of
appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court.
SSP Parnters and Metro Novelties, Inc., No. 05-0721 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(products liability, indemnity)
SSP PARTNERS AND METRO NOVELTIES, INC. v. GLADSTRONG INVESTMENTS (USA)
CORPORATION; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-02-00671-CV, 169 SW3d 27, 04-07-05)
2 petitions
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.
JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza, No. 05-1042 (Tex. June 27, 2008) (Opinion by Justice David Medina)
(UCC breach of implied warranty claim in personal injury PI death case a tort for purposes of
comparative responsibility statute; recovery barred)
JCW ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PEARL IRIZ GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF
ROLANDO DOMINGO MONTEZ, DECEASED, AND BELINDA LEIGH CAMACHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
NEXT FRIEND OF ROLANDO KADRIC MONTEZ, A MINOR CHILD; from Cameron County; 13th district
(13-02-00577-CV, 176 SW3d 618, 10-13-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice David Medina delivered the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice O'Neill joined.
New Texas Auto Auction Services, LP. v. Gomez de Hernandez, No. 06-0550 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)
(Brister)(consumer law, auctioneer liability for selling defective car, wrongful death)
Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter, No. 05-0835 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008)(David Medina) (products liability, design
defect claim, implicit federal preemption of state tort law, manufacturing defect claim)
BIC PEN CORPORATION v. JANACE M. CARTER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF BRITTANY CARTER; from
Matagorda County; 13th district (13-03-00560-CV, 171 S.W.3d 657, 08-18-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court. (Justice Green not sitting)
Ansell Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Owens & Minor, Inc., No. 06-0386 (Tex. Apr. 4, 2008)(per curiam)
(product liability, indemnification for litigation costs)
ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. AND BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY v. OWENS &
MINOR, INC. AND OWENS & MINOR MEDICAL, INC.; from Bowie County; 6th district (06-04-00136-CV,
189 S.W.3d 889, 03-31-06) 2 petitions
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Owens & Minor, Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Products, Inc., No. 06-0322 (Tex. Mar 28, 2008)(Green)
(cert. question from 5th Cir.) (products liability, indemnification, litigation costs)
OWENS & MINOR, INC. AND OWENS & MINOR MEDICAL, INC. v. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,
INC. AND BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY
motion to consolidate denied
The Court answers the question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Wainwright, and Justice Brister joined.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina, Justice Johnson, and Justice
Willett joined.
New Texas Auto Auction Services, LP. v. Gomez de Hernandez, No. 06-0550 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)
(Brister)(consumer law, auctioneer liability for selling defective car, wrongful death)
NEW TEXAS AUTO AUCTION SERVICES, L.P. D/B/A BIG H AUTO AUCTION v. GRACIELA GOMEZ DE
HERNANDEZ, ET AL.; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13- 03-00728-CV, 193 S.W.3d 220, 04-06-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.
Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Inman, No. 03-1189 (Tex. Feb. 1, 2008)(Opinion by Justice Nathan Hecht)
(consumer law, product liability, class action dismissed on standing grounds, jurisdictional dismissal,
DWOJ)
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION v. BILL INMAN, DAVID CASTRO, AND JOHN WILKINS, EACH
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; from Nueces County; 13th
district (13-02-00415-CV, 121 S.W.3d 862, 11/20/03)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case for want of jurisdiction.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice
Medina, and Justice Willett joined.
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Harriet O'Neill, Justice
Paul Green, and Justice Phil Johnson joined.
Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, No. 05-0895 (Tex. Dec. 21, 2007)(Willett)(PI-auto, products liability,
manufacturing defect, expert testimony, causation, jury charge error)
FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. TIBURCIO LEDESMA, JR.; from Bastrop County; 3rd district
(03-03-00634-CV, 173 S.W.3d 78, 05/05/2005)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.
COURT OF APPEALS CASES IN WHICH TEXAS SUPREME COURT DENIED
REVIEW
08-0017
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY v. SHAUN T. MIAN CORP. D/B/A MIDWAY TOWER, IRVING L.
HUMPHREY AND CALVIN OTTE; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-05-00529-CV, 237 SW3d 851, 10-
08-07)(product liability law, manufacturing defect claim, fax machine, fire)
Based on the summary judgment evidence, we conclude there is a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the printer was defective when it left the manufacturer and caused the fire. We also conclude
that HP did not negate an essential element of appellants' claims as a matter of law. Accordingly, we
sustain appellants' issues regarding the manufacturing defect claims. We affirm the trial court's summary
judgment as to appellants' negligence and design and marketing defect claims. We reverse the trial
court's summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim and remand the case for further
proceedings.
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions homepage |