Hernandez v. Tokai Corp. case brief
2 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 1999)
SYNOPSIS:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified the question as to whether a disposable butane lighter, intended only for adult use, could be found to be defectively designed if it did not have a child-resistant mechanism, under the Texas Products Liability Act of 1993, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§16.012, 82.001-.006.
OVERVIEW: Appellant, next friend of a minor child injured in an accident in which a child misused a butane lighter, sued appellee, the manufacturer of the lighter, alleging product liability due to defective design of the product. The trial court granted summary judgment for appellee. On appeal, the federal district court submitted a certified question as to whether the action could proceed under the Texas Products Liability Act of 1993, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § §§16.012, 82.001-.006.
ISSUE:
At issue was whether a defective-design products liability claim against the product's manufacturer was permitted if the product was intended to be used only by adults, if the risk that children might misuse the product was obvious to the product's manufacturer and to its intended users, and if a safer alternative design was available.
HOLDING:
The court held that such a defective-design claim may proceed under Texas law only if, with reference to the product's intended users, the design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, a safer alternative design was available, and the defect caused the injury.
RULES:
The risk-utility analysis used in determining whether a defectively designed product is unreasonably dangerous involves consideration of several factors, including: (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 the 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.
OUTCOME: The court held that a defective-design claim may proceed for an injury caused by a product that did not have a child-resistant mechanism that would have prevented or substantially reduced the risk of injury from a child's foreseeable misuse only if, with reference to the product's intended users, the design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, a safer alternative design was available, and the defect was the cause of the injury.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
2 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 1999)
SYNOPSIS:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified the question as to whether a disposable butane lighter, intended only for adult use, could be found to be defectively designed if it did not have a child-resistant mechanism, under the Texas Products Liability Act of 1993, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§16.012, 82.001-.006.
OVERVIEW: Appellant, next friend of a minor child injured in an accident in which a child misused a butane lighter, sued appellee, the manufacturer of the lighter, alleging product liability due to defective design of the product. The trial court granted summary judgment for appellee. On appeal, the federal district court submitted a certified question as to whether the action could proceed under the Texas Products Liability Act of 1993, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § §§16.012, 82.001-.006.
ISSUE:
At issue was whether a defective-design products liability claim against the product's manufacturer was permitted if the product was intended to be used only by adults, if the risk that children might misuse the product was obvious to the product's manufacturer and to its intended users, and if a safer alternative design was available.
HOLDING:
The court held that such a defective-design claim may proceed under Texas law only if, with reference to the product's intended users, the design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, a safer alternative design was available, and the defect caused the injury.
RULES:
The risk-utility analysis used in determining whether a defectively designed product is unreasonably dangerous involves consideration of several factors, including: (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 the 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.
OUTCOME: The court held that a defective-design claim may proceed for an injury caused by a product that did not have a child-resistant mechanism that would have prevented or substantially reduced the risk of injury from a child's foreseeable misuse only if, with reference to the product's intended users, the design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, a safer alternative design was available, and the defect was the cause of the injury.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment