369 S.W.3d 291
Tex. App.2011Background
- Megan Hamid died after losing control of a 2002 Lexus ES300 on an unlit portion of I-45; a dark blue abandoned vehicle obstructed her lane.
- Plaintiffs allege the ES300 was defectively designed for lacking a Vehicle Stability Control device, making it unreasonably dangerous and causing Megan’s death.
- Defendants Lexus/Toyota argued the ES300 complied with applicable federal safety standards, entitling them to a section 82.008 presumption of no liability.
- At trial, Hamids presented expert testimony that a VSC would have saved Megan; Toyota’s experts said FMVSS compliance addressed the relevant risk and the device was unnecessary.
- During charge conference, Hamids objected to Question No. 1, seeking a presumption instruction under section 82.008(a) based on FMVSS compliance.
- The jury answered No to Question No. 1 and the trial court awarded a take-nothing judgment; Hamids appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 82.008(a) presumption applies when no FMVSS relates to the alleged defect | Hamids: presumption does not apply without a related federal standard. | Hamids: (defendant) presumption applies broadly to standards governing the product risk. | Presumption applies based on relevant product risk; standard content governs risk, not specific defect. |
| Preservation of charge objections to the presumption instruction | Hamids preserved three challenges to the instruction. | Toyota: only first objection preserved; others waived. | Only the first challenge was preserved; other arguments waived. |
| Scope of the 'risk' relevant to the presumption under 82.008 | Hamids argue risk tied to absence of VSC in design. | Toyota argues risk is broad (loss of control), addressed by FMVSS 105/135. | Plain language addresses risk, not a particular device; risk definition controls the presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Ford Motor Co., 508 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2007) (presumption under 82.008 focused on product risk, not the specific device)
- Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. Norman, 104 S.W.3d 600 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (design defect elements and risk-balancing framework in Texas)
- Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.2010) (statutory construction approach; start with text absent ambiguity)
- Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 421 (Tex.2011) (permissive use of legislative history; text-first approach)