Garza v. Boggus Ford AKA Boggus Motor Sales, L.P.
6:10-cv-00005
S.D. Tex.Jan 30, 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Garza sue Ford in S.D. Texas for products liability arising from a December 12, 2007 rollover of a Ford E-250 van.
- Plaintiffs allege design flaws, rollover-prone weight distribution, inadequate restraints, and insufficient warnings.
- Police report indicates Mr. Garza may have been fatigued; theories include tire blowout and loss of control, but record suggests fatigue and overcorrection.
- After the accident, the van was auctioned and largely stripped of parts; the vehicle later existed as only a shell.
- Plaintiffs initially sued Hankook and Boggus in state court; Ford remained as the sole defendant after removal and dismissals.
- Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiffs cannot prove strict liability or negligence theories without expert proof; plaintiffs did not respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design defect: safer alternative design required | Garza argues design defects rendered the van unreasonably dangerous. | Ford contends no proof of a safer alternative design; claims fail as a matter of law. | Design defect claims fail; no evidence of safer alternative design. |
| Manufacturing defect: deviation from specifications | Garza asserts component deviation made vehicle unreasonably dangerous. | Ford shows no evidence of deviation from design specifications. | Manufacturing defect claims fail; no deviation proven. |
| Marketing defect: failure to warn or instruct | Garza alleges inadequate warnings/instructions rendered product dangerous. | Ford argues no evidence of marketing defect or causation. | Marketing defect claims fail; warning/instruction not proven. |
| Negligence: negligent design/manufacture | Garza alleges Ford breached duties to design and manufacture safely. | Ford contends no proof of safer alternative design and no causation. | Negligence claims fail for lack of evidence of a safer alternative. |
| Negligent failure to warn | Garza contends Ford failed to warn about rollover risks. | Ford argues no evidence warnings were required or causally connected. | Failure to warn claims fail; no proximate causation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. 1995) (design defect elements and safer alternative design required)
- Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. 1998) (proof of defect and safer alternative design; manufacturing/marketing distinctions)
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (four design defect elements; producing cause; safer alternative design must exist)
- Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997) (manufacturing defect and evidence requirements; reliance on design failure)
- Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 732 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. App.—Hou. Dist. 14th) (negligent failure to warn - foreseeability and causation standard)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 916 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. App.—Hou. 1st Dist. 1996) (negligent failure to warn analysis; proximate cause requirement)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting on movant/nonmovant)