______________________________________________________________

PRODUCTS LIABILITY UPDATE by Stephanie McCaffity, Associate

______________________________________________________________

1. Garcia v. BRK Brands, Inc., 2003 WL 21262014 (S.D. Tex 2003).

Plaintiffs' claims against smoke detector manufacturer were dismissed because they did not offer reliable expert testimony supporting a reasonable inference that the smoke detector should have alarmed in time to save the decedent.

Manuel Cruz (Decedent) lived in a house without central heating. He purchased a space heater and improperly filled the heater with propane gas instead of natural gas. After a night of drinking, a date with one woman and a late night visit from another, Decedent was found dead the following evening from carbon monoxide inhalation. His heirs and estate filed a products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the smoke detector in the house. The court granted the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment finding that while the Plaintiffs could circumstantially prove that: (a)detector was properly powered; (b) should have alarmed if it was exposed to sufficient smoke to trigger the detector; and (c) that the detector did not alarm, the Plaintiffs did not have reliable expert testimony to support a reasonable inference that the detector should have alarmed in time to save the Decedent's life.

2. Federal Petroleum Co. v. Gas Equipment Co., 2003 WL 1923507 (Tex.App.- Corpus Christi 2003).

Court declines invitation to recognize a right of common law indemnity between a retailer and a non-manufacturing, non-designing supplier.

Gas Equipment Company (GEC) provided a product manufactured by another company to Federal Petroleum Company (Federal). Both GEC and Federal were sued by Plaintiffs seeking to recover damages resulting from a gas explosion. GEC settled with the Plaintiffs and filed a motion for summary judgment as to Federal's cross-claim for indemnity, which was subsequently granted by the trial court. On appeal, Federal argued that GEC motion should have been denied because Federal, as an innocent retailer, had a common law right to indemnity to GEC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding there is no right of common law indemnity between a retailer and a non-manufacturing, non-designing supplier in Texas.

******************************************

If you have any questions about any of these cases or would like copies of specific cases, please contact Stephanie McCaffity (SMcCaffity@fhmlaw.com).

******************************************

© Fanning, Harper & Martinson, P.C., July 2003.

Fanning, Harper & Martinson, P.C.

Two Energy Square

4849 Greenville Ave., Suite 1300

Dallas, Texas 75206

Phone: (214) 369-1300

Fax: (214) 987-9649

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © by Fanning Harper & Martinson P.C.. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.