| Venue: | TX SC |
| Facts: | A guy goes out to feed the heifers and ends up being pinned to the gate by his own truck. |
| Posture: | Family sues saying that the truck's transmission was defective (and must have been perched between park and reverse). Finding for plaintiff at trial saying that warnings were inadequate. Jury finds also that Sanchez was 50% responsible, but the court sets that aside, and renders $8.5M in damanges for the plaintiff. Affirmed on appeal. |
| Issue: | When does the doctrine of comparative responsibility apply in a products liability case? |
| Holding: | Now, for instance. Punitive damages reversedm and actual damages to be reduced by 50%. |
| Rule: | Other than a mere failure to discover or guard againsta product defect, a plaintiff's conduct is subject to comparative responsibility. |
| Reasoning: | A consumer has no duty to discover or guard against a product
defect. On the other hand, if the consumer does breach an
existing duty, comparative responsibility shall apply.
So really, we need to decide whether that was the case here. The manual tells how to safely operate the truck: set the brake, put it in park, turn off the engine, remove the key, check that park is fully engaged. Looks like Sanchez failed to perform these steps. Regardless of the danger of a mis-shift, a driver has the duty to take reasonable precautions. Drivers licenses are required-- this means that more is expected of drivers than just plain vanilla consumers: they have had some training, and are on notice of safety requirements. |
| Dicta: | |