TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN PRODUCT LIABILITY APPEALS

law-product-liability | consumer law cases | defective design | unreasonable risk | obvious danger

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 2009-2008)

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.

Owe n s & 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.