Controls Solutions, Inc., United Phosphorus, Inc. and Mark Boyd v. Gharda USA, Inc. and Gharda Chemical Ltd.
394 S.W.3d 127
Tex. App.2012Background
- Fire destroyed CSI’s Pasadena facility in 2004; CSI alleged Gharda/Gharda USA sold off-spec chlorpyrifos causing the fire; jury verdict found in CSI’s favor on multiple questions but trial court granted JNOV to Gharda/GUSA; CSI claimed damages including building, environmental cleanup, inventory, and lost profits; the trial court later entered an amended final judgment and then the appellate court reversed and remanded for judgment on the jury verdict; Gharda/GUSA cross-points argued damages were insufficient and that GUSA’s damages were capped by a contract provision; the court held CSI’s expert testimony reliable and reversed the JNOV, remanding for judgment on the jury verdict in CSI’s favor; the dissent would have affirmed the take-nothing judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability of CSI’s experts supporting negligence, defect, and causation | CSI—Russo, Rice, Armstrong, Cheremisinoff reliable | Gharda—testimony unreliable under Rule 702/Robinson | CSI’s expert testimony supported the jury’s findings |
| Marketing defect and adequacy of warnings | CSI proved inadequate warnings caused damages | Gharda contends lack of causal link and improper reliance on experts | JNOV improper; marketing defect supported by evidence |
| Causation and manufacturing defect without unreliable expert testimony | Evidence of origin and cause sufficient to prove defect and causation | Unreliable expert testimony barred verdict | Evidence supports causation and defect; JNOV reversed |
| Misnomer and limitations on Boyd’s damages impact | Misnomer preserved; Boyd damages recoverable | Limitation on damages and statute of limitations apply | Misnomer allowed relation-back; damages award preserved; Boyd not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2009) (testing and reliability analysis of expert testimony; gaps may render opinions unreliable)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (gatekeeping for expert testimony; reliability of underlying data and methods)
- Mendez v. cosmos?, 204 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. 2006) (Robinson factors for reliability; testing and peer review considerations)