Products Liability Update
By Stephanie McCaffity - Associate

Equistar Chemicals, L.P. v. Dresser-Rand Company, 2003 WL 22672205 (Tex.App.-Hous.(14th Dist.), November 13, 2003).  Motion for Rehearing overruled, January 15, 2004.

A cause of action regarding a compressor's failed impeller arose at the compressor's time of sale, as the compressor was the product and the impeller was a component part.

Equistar Chemicals used 2 charge gas compressors to produce chemicals at its plant in Channelview, Texas.   Equistar's predecessor had purchased the compressors from Dresser-Rand in 1975.  In order to boost production, larger impellers were installed in the compressors in 1991.  These impellers frequently failed and damaged the compressor.  In 1996, the propellers were reduced to their original size.  The impellers continued to fail.  In 2000, Equistar filed suit against Dresser-Rand for damages caused by the impeller failures in 1999.  The district court found Dresser-Rand liable under strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty theories and assessed more than $3.6 million in damages.  The court of appeals reversed, finding that the impellers were component parts and the compressors were the product.  Therefore, any claim for damage had to be brought in a contract or warranty action by 1979 (4 years after the original sale).

In re R.O.C. Pretrial, 2004 WL 56919 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, January 14, 2004).

Plaintiffs failed to meet burden of showing they were exposed to asbestos or silica in a form that was capable of causing injury.

Plaintiffs alleged they contracted asbestosis and/or silicosis as a result of exposure to asbestos and silica in the course of their employment.   Defendants' No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment was granted by the trial court on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of causation or that that they suffered a reliably diagnosed injury due to the products in question.  The Plaintiffs appealed on 3 points, including that the trial court had improperly denied a request for additional discovery to respond to the No Evidence Motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that: (1) the Plaintiffs failed to prove the form of asbestos or silica they were exposed was the type that caused asbestosis or silicosis; (2) the Plaintiffs failed to show there was an accurate diagnosis of asbestosis or silicosis; and (3) the Plaintiffs did not explain how further discovery would allow them to prove the elements of their claims.

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.