Products Liability Update

by Benjamin Britt 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY UPDATE

By Benjamin Britt

1. FFE Transportation Services, Inc. v. Fulgham, (___ S.W.3d ___, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 267 (Tex. 2004).

Strict liability in a products action is inapplicable when a company gratuitously provides a product to an independent contractor working for the company for the sole purpose of accomplishing the company’s business.

Plaintiff was an independent contractor for Defendant hired as a long haul trucker. Defendant was in the business of transporting freight by motor vehicle. Plaintiff provided his own tractor and Defendant provided the trailer. Plaintiff was paid by receiving a percentage of the transport fee. Three hours into a trip, the trailer’s coupler assembly broke loose causing the trailer to separate from the tractor and overturn. Plaintiff quickly lost control of his tractor which also overturned causing bodily injury. Plaintiff brought a strict liability products claim against Defendant in which the trial court granted a directed verdict that strict liability was not applicable because the trailer was not put into the stream of commerce. The Appeals Court reversed the trial court saying strict liability was applicable because the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant was a lease and placed the trailer into the stream of commerce. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Appeals Court’s ruling saying that a company that gratuitously furnished a product solely to accomplish its own business purposes can be liable for negligence but not for a strict liability defective products claim.

2. Toshiba Int’l Corp v. Henry, 152 S.W.3d 774 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.)

A component part manufacturer providing only a manual for its product that could be used in many applications was not sufficient participation to impose liability for the alleged defect in the integrated system.

Plaintiff was injured when he was startled and backed away from an aluminum scrap processor causing him to trip and fall and suffering a back injury. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant company, who made the inverter which was used as a component of the control panel which regulated the power to the scrap processor. The Defendant did not design or install the control panel, wiring or switches but only provided a manual for use and installation of the inverter. The evidence at trial showed that the converter itself was not defective; however the trial court awarded the Plaintiff damages on all of his liability theories. The Appeals Court reversed and held that a component part manufacturer could not be held liable based solely on it providing a manual and that solely providing a manual was not sufficient participation to impose liability for a defect in the integrated system.

3. Costilla v. Crown Equipment Corporation, 148 S.W.3d 736 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.).

OSHA and NIOSH regulations were held relevant and admissible evidence as to a safer alternative design claim.

Plaintiff injured his leg and sued the Defendant forklift manufacturer alleging defective design and that his injury would have been prevented if the forklift had a door. The Defendant successfully admitted an OSHA regulation and NIOSH alert at trial arguing that both were relevant to the design defect claim. Both regulations recommended that operators be trained to exit from the forklift by stepping backward if a tip over occurs which a door would have prevented. The Appeals Court upheld the trial court’s decision and ruled the regulations were relevant to the Plaintiff’s proposed safer alternative design.

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.