*1 608 allowing injured party employee
force the the third scheme an of the favors injured employee.” name of simultaneously accept compensa- the Id. to workers’ may 417.001. carrier The insurance use tion benefits and maintain an intentional tort proceeds lawsuit the from the to reimburse injured, cause of first em- action. When the payments any itself for and treat made ex- ployee may financially be unable to work and against cess amount as an advance future waiting incapable period an of of extended injured employee. benefits it owes the Id. damage time pursuit while of award §§ 417.001-.002. an lawsuit. employee intentional tort must be able to himself with workers’ sustain concede, I correctly points as the Court compensation pending damage out, benefits such party” the term “third does not award, not might which be realized for sever- clearly indicate Act whether the considers years, al if When employer employee at all. the does party against a third whom the damages, compensation recover workers’ compensation may workers’ carrier seek re Nevertheless, recoup paid carrier could all imbursement. under common benefits equitable subrogation, any payments employ- law the workers’ com offset future from the context, pensation may carrier still intervene to In damage re ee’s this award. coup payments placed made establish offsets employee precari- be would not possible payments. purpose future position choosing accept ous of workers’ equitable subrogation prevent behind is to compensation necessary benefits to sustain debtor/employee being unjustly from en family peril losing himself and his of riched. Smart v. Land Inv. Tower & constitutionally protected his intentional tort (Tex.1980). 333, 597 S.W.2d 337 Under this cause action. doctrine, equitable pay who party makes n n n n ¾: # debtor, ments the benefit of by applying Because erred the Court injured subrogated an employee, is election of remedies doctrine to circum- rights First the debtor. Nat’l Bank of apply, it does re- stances which I (Tex. O’Dell, 410, Kerrville v. spectfully dissent. would reverse 1993); American Ins. v. Centennial Canal entire of the court of 480, (Tex.1992). Ins. and remand the ease to the trial court. context, equitable subrogation the insurance allows the insurance carrier to intervene in against party
an insured’s lawsuit a third
recoup payments made the carrier. Ortiz Casualty
v. Great S. Fire & Ins. (Tex.1980). prevents This FIRESTONE PRODUCTS STEEL COM receiving recovery insured from double PANY, formerly a Division the Fire injuries. for the same Id. The Court cor- Company, stone Tire & Rubber Accuride rectly principle states that “[a]n insurer Corporation, the Firestone Tire & Rub subrogation if [equitable] entitled to Company, Bridgestone/Fire ber the insured’s loss is in excess the amounts stone, Inc., Petitioners, from and the third recovered the insurer party causing the loss.” S.W.2d at 604 343). Ortiz, (quoting But Manuel BARAJAS and Luisa then, course, yet Barajas, Respondents. would not the insured recovery. According- have received a double 95-0382. No. ly, subrogation equitable doctrine of can Supreme of Texas. Court applied compensation to the workers’ possibility guard against scheme to Argued Oct. 1995. unjust compensation, prevent enrich- double Decided June 1996. ment, preserve equity. Rehearing Sept. Overruled IV
Concluding, my public it is view that the compensation
policy behind the workers’ *3 tires, applica- Eastus, for dual-wheel Wyckoff Boyce, P. 9-inch Matthew Maria Houston, for Peti- tions. Maloney, James Edward
tioners. However, it patented its Christi, Edwards, Corpus R. William design for royalty-free of its granted licenses Respondents. wheels. manufacture of tires domestic sought profit, not from licensure Justice, BAKER, opinion of delivered the prod- industry use of patent, but from of its Court, PHILLIPS, in which Chief help customer demand that would build ucts GONZALEZ, CORNYN, HECHT, Justice, products. own for Firestone’s Justices, OWEN, ABBOTT, SPECTOR, Fire- Kelsey-Hayes Company modified join. original 15 degree bead stone’s *4 on wrongful ease based This is a death design Kel- design to its own wheel. wheel negligence, lia- allegations origi- design sey-Hayes’ changed Firestone’s bility, conspiracy against Firestone and civil by making it 16.5 patented design wheel nal Company others. The Products and Steel diameter, by making in it narrower inches granted summary judgment for trial court tires, by making it only 6.75 inch and fit 6- or The court reversed Firestone. Kelsey-Hayes’ “hump bead.” with a trial. and remanded cause for itself, single by not a only was for wheel ap- We court of S.W.2d 789. reverse the its Kelsey-Hayes manufactured dual wheel. for peals’ judgment and render did hump bead Firestone own 16.5 wheel. hold in the circum- Firestone. We that or mar- the manufacture participate designer of a of this stances way, any keting Kelsey-Hayes’ tires product concept copied, modi- general that is Kelsey- royalty from and did not collect by a is not liable fied and used manufacturer patented Hayes for use of Firestone’s injuries resulting for from the use of manufacturer’s B. The Accident THE FACTS I. BACKGROUND 1970’s, early tire and wheel In the accidents industry began receiving reports of Design A.The Wheel tried to mount occurring when tire mounters 1950’s, designed and In the late Firestone wheels. inflate 16-inch tires on 16.5-inch as patented single-piece a new wheel known Association, a The Rubber Manufacturers degree taper. bead seat For the first the 15 industry group monitors after-mar- tire time, permitted installation warnings developed sidewall problems, ket initial tubeless tire on wheel. Firestone’s tires. for 16-inch degree a 22.5- bead seat wheel was morning, Jimmy Barajas apparently One heavy for The inch wheel trucks. fix a tire on a attempted to flat 3/4-ton tires, possible it to use instead made tubeless apparently put a 16-inch pickup. He tried tires, al- tube-type on trucks. Firestone Company on a by Tire tire made General industry lowed the entire to use 16.5-inch wheel made pat- charging a fee under its without license fatally injuring Company. exploded, The tire ent. one the accident. Jimmy. No witnessed larger original design was for rims semi- size tires and used for 18-wheel Litigation C. mid-1960’s, rigs. Fire- trailer In tractor developed degree a 15 stone In the 1. Trial Court nominal diameter. wheel with 16.5-inch Bara- Jimmy’s parents, and Luisa fighter Manuel owners could use this Truck wheel Tire, Firestone, Kelsey- pick-ups. jas, or Fire- sued General as 1-ton trucks such 3/4- and others Hayes, Company, Budd single wheel innovation was not a stone’s alleged They wrongful side son’s death. a dual with two tires them but Jimmy’s death or was liable for with 8- that Firestone This wheel used side. (1) based on claims of outstanding theory that Firestone negligence. Barajases manufactured, asserted that compo- or sold a originally designed, Firestone had manufac- allegedly nent of the wheel that killed component part tured and sold a of the wheel Jimmy Barajas; question. Barajases alleged also (2) allegations that Firestone had en- engaged Firestone in a civil gaged introducing in the business of dangers conceal and obscure the hidden question, trying to mount mismatched tires and thereof, commerce; into the channels of wheels. Firestone answered and moved for sum- allegations (3) had con- Firestone mary judgment. in its mo- sciously knowingly combined and con- summary judgment tion that evidence spired engage with others to an intend- showed, as a matter of that it ed course of conduct which resulted in design, manufacture or sell the wheel Jimmy’s death. motion, support of its expert deposition. relied on its witness’ Application for Writ of Error upon also relied partial motion for Error, Application In its Fire- Writ *5 against Kelsey-Hayes summary and their argues appeals stone that the court of erred showed, judgment evidence that as a matter improperly because it held that Firestone’s law, Kelsey-Hayes manufactured the summary judgment negate evidence did not argued wheel Firestone also Barajases’ manu- the claims that Firestone upon it could not be liable based factured, designed or sold a original patent. allegedly of the wheel that killed Ba- rajas. argues Firestone also that the court The trial court heard both motions at the appeals concluding erred that Fire- granted same time. The trial court Ba- the subject original stone’s idea could rajases’ partial summary a judgment, holding injury liability by Firestone to for caused Kelsey-Hayes manufactured the wheel. The designed, that was manufactured granted summary trial court also Firestone a entity. and sold a different Firestone on all the claims and argues appeals’ the court of decision nothing judgment rendered a take for Fire- expansive creates an new cause of action for against Barajases. stone original design recognized defects that is not Appeal liability under strict tort law Texas. On Barajases appealed nothing The the take Barajases respond that court of The judgment. They contended that Firestone appeals reversing was correct in Firestone’s conclusively negate did not an essential ele- summary judgment. Barajases assert products liability, negli- ment of their strict motion Firestone’s gence civil and causes of action. proof allega- and did not meet the Specifically, they claimed that Firestone did (1) originally proof tions and that: negate allegations not their that Firestone designed, patented, and licensed marketed designed, compo- manufactured and sold a using combination the 15-de- tire/rim question. They nent the wheel gree-bead-taper low-flange-height and fea- argued faulty that Firestone was hable for (2) tures; Firestone was the cause and the design of the and that killed tire Jim- primary design becoming cause such my Barajas original because of Firestone’s (3) industry; standard for the tire-wheel patent. producing, proximate Firestone was a and legal design in agreed The court of with the Bara- cause of the use of that (4) jases, originally question; held that wheel in and Firestone’s initiated, judgment proof negate designed, promoted, did not all the Bara- marketed jases’ in- allegations. Specifically, it held that introduced to the tire-wheel and vehicle negate: nominal diameter Firestone did not dustries the 16.5-inch (b) expected reach the single piece it is to and does drop-center wheel/rim (5) consumer substantial question; user or without as the wheel but such it is change in the condition in which Firestone, today. system would not exist sold. Barajas argue further that Firestone § 402A (Second) of Torts Restatement son, including to warn their had a users Co., (1965); Mfg. at 236. Lubbock Jimmy, of the hazards associated with products. Barajases applies any person conclude en use of its The rule patented, selling products marketed gaged that because Firestone in the business of 15-degree-bead-taper consumption. Armstrong de- and licensed Rubber use or liability, sign low-flange-height feature and at 375. incur a de To S.W.2d wheel, actually the 16.5-inch should be held sell fendant does have to had chan introducing if Firestone into product; accountable same as particular ques- Armstrong enough. manufactured the commerce is nels of However, tion. at 375. Rubber product must reach user or consumer granted application for We it change in the condition without substantial writ of error. possession. manufacturer’s or seller’s left the (Second) See Restatement II. LAW APPLICABLE 402A(l)(b) (1965); Armstrong Rubber Negligence A. system or If the law, negligence At common cause gives party, prototype to another (1) legal duty action consists of: owed enough impose alone is this action (2) another; person to one a breach of that liability theo under (3) duty; damages resulting proximately *6 Corp., v. 799 ry. See Piscitello Hobart Transp. from the breach. Greater Houston 224, F.Supp. (D.Mass.1992)(applying 225-26 (Tex. 523, Phillips, Co. v. 801 525 S.W.2d holding law that where a 1990). Massachusetts prerequisite liability A to'tort is the manufacture, did not distribute or defendant legally cognizable duty. of a existence Graff issue, product particular at but rather (Tex.1993). sell Beard, 918, 858 v. S.W.2d 919 after only original product duty question of law.
Whether exists is a pat most of the had been which McGuire, Joseph Seagram E. 814 & Sons v. years, impose over the strict terned does 385, (Tex.1991); 387 S.W.2d Greater Houston Snyder liability upon designer); Co., Transp. 801 at S.W.2d Ltd., 244, 4 Alloys, F.Supp. 772 250 n. v. ISC Pennsylvania law (W.D.Pa.1991)(applying Liability B. Strict Products 402A, stating § that under a seller can Texas, of the Re section 402A In strictly held hable if the governs (Second) claims statement of injured unchanged). user reaches liability strict tort. See Restatement preparation drawings or a Mere (1965); § (Second) Lubbock 402A of Torts (Tex. designing Sames, prototype, does constitute 234, Mfg. Co. v. 236 598 S.W.2d liability product from does he. eventual which 1980); Armstrong Urquidez, Rubber v.Co. Ill.App.3d Zanzig Corp., v. H.P.M. 134 374, (Tex.1978). See 570 S.W.2d 375-76 Section 1204, 461, 617, 465, Ill.Dec. 480 N.E.2d 89 402A defines cause of action as: (1985). City Talley See also v. Tank 1208 (1) any product who sells in a defec- one 264, 130, Corp., Ga.App. 269 158 279 S.E.2d unreasonably dangerous to tive condition (1981); Design Chemical v. American Stan property the user or his is consumer or to dard, 488, (Mo.Ct.App. 847 S.W.2d 490-91 subject physical harm there- 1993). consum- caused to ultimate user or er, property, or to if his Texas, duty to existence
(a) dangers alleged of an defective engaged the seller the business warn of Joseph E. question law. selling product, such a is a 614 McGuire,
Seagram “gist conspiracy” injury v. of a civil & Sons 814 S.W.2d (Tex.1991). 385, A gener conspirators Triplex 387 manufacturer intend to cause. Com ally munications, 720; does not have a to warn or instruct at Schlumber products, about manufacturer’s another even ger Surveying Corp. v. Nortex Well Oil & though party might prod (Tex.1968). 854, third use those Corp., Gas 856 ucts in connection with the manufacturer’s Harnischfeger, own v. See Walton conspiracy requires specific in Civil 225, (Tex.App.—San 796 Antonio S.W.2d 226 arise, conspiracy civil tent. For a denied). 1990, jurisdictions reach writ Other parties must be aware of the harm or the v. the same conclusion. See Rastelli Good wrongful beginning conduct at the 289, year Tire & Rubber 79 N.Y.2d 582 agreement. Triplex combination or See 373, 222, (1992); 591 N.E.2d 225-26 N.Y.S.2d Communications, 900 at 719. One S.W.2d Climber, Inc., 629, Sky v.
Mitchell
396 Mass.
expressly
tacitly,
agree,
cannot
to commit
(1986).
the other any He did not discuss to the rim. welded judgment is virtu- summary evidence The manufactured. wheel Firestone Kelsey-Hayes manufac- ally undisputed The issue sold the wheel. tured and Company Barajases offered the Budd compo- designed all or a whether expert’s deposition. He testified that caused the wheel nent characteristics consistent wheel exhibited Barajas’ death. Kelsey-Hayes manufactured. with wheels as rivets identified the characteristics He conclu- evidence rim instead of welds connecting the disc and Kelsey-Hayes wheel sively that the shows cap shape of the hub and the location and origi- substantially from Firestone’s different humps. had not seen this combination He degree wheel patented 15 bead nal any wheel manufactured characteristics degree bead seat modified 15 or Firestone’s Kelsey-Hayes. by anyone other than taper wheel. expert The Firestone testified (1) Fire- principal differences are: was consistent with the degree bead seat original 15 stone’s He characteristics of the wheel truck 22-inch tractor-trailer wheel was for a with the said he had never seen wheel Kelsey-Hayes design was for wheel—the than one characteristics of the wheel other (2) wheel; Fire- truck 16.5-inch small by Kelsey-Hayes. made a 16.5-inch was for stone modified or 9-inch wheel for 8- nominal diameter Judgment B. Firestone’s Summary Kelsey-Hayes design application tire —the principal summary judgment Firestone’s for a 6- or 6.75- a 16.5-ineh wheel was for deposition. expert witness’ evidence was its (3) welded application; tire ineh expert expert the Bara- This was the same Kelsey-Hayes riveted the disc to the rim — summary judg- jases partial relied on their (4) rim; Firestone’s wheel had the disc to against Kelsey-Hayes. Firestone also ment wheel had cap hump Kelsey-Hayes’ no hub — Barajases’ summary judgment relied on the (5) 16.5- cap hump; and Firestone’s a hub evidence. application— dual wheel ineh wheel was for single was for Kelsey-Hayes’ 16.5-inch wheel expert that Fire- testified application. degree original design for a 15 stone’s *8 wheel taper seat wheel was for a 22.5-inch an trailer suitable for 18-wheel semi-tractor THE BARAJASES’ CAUSES Y. designed 15-degree
rig.
a
Later
OF ACTION
a 16.5-inch nomi-
bead seat
wheel with
Negligence
A.
design
wheel
nal diameter. This
was
dual
by side. This
for use with two tires side
conclusively
it did
showed
only
design
be used
with 8- or 9-inch
could
or sell the wheel
design, manufacture
tires,
only
application.
for dual wheel
no
Accordingly, Firestone owed
negated an
Barajases. Firestone
duty to the
summary judgment evidence
Firestone’s
negli
of the
essential element
Kelsey-Hayes modified
also showed that
Graff, 858 S.W.2d
gence cause of action. See
seat ta-
degree
bead
Firestone’s
court of
Barajases and the
The
design
per
design to
its own wheel.
rely
Alm v. Aluminum Co.
degree
appeals
the 15
Kelsey-Hayes
used
(Tex.1986),
sup-
America,
to
However,
Kelsey-Hayes
717 S.W.2d
taper.
bead seat
port
the claim that a
or manufactur
tures of an automobile
For a licensor
wheel.
product
duty
hable,
er of
owes a
consumer.
strictly
be
the licensor must be an
However,
easily distinguished
Aim is
on its
integral part
marketing process
of the overall
Aim,
designed
facts.
Alcoa
and marketed
injuries resulting
that should bear the cost of
process.
Alcoa
the bottle closure
products.
Imposition
from defective
of strict
cap.
designed,
bottle
Alcoa
manufac
liability
than an incidental
demands more
tured,
capping
and sold
machine.
the bottle
marketing program
of the
role
the overah
Alm,
See
Here,
undisputed summary
judgment
only that Firestone
evidence shows
Liability
B. Strict Products
original designer and that it was not
was the
proved
Kelsey-Hayes
production, marketing
involved in the
or dis-
significantly changed
the wheel’s
tribution of
defective
show,
enough
These
differences are
product. Accordingly,
the court of
as a matter of
that Firestone did not
summary judgment
reversing
erred in
component part
all or a
of the wheel. Firestone under these circumstances. See
Firestone’s
evidence Piscitello,
F.Supp. at
225-26.
product
originally
showed that
it
de
signed and later modified reached the user
about
We reach the same conclusion
changes
with substantial
in the condition it
that because Fire
assertion
originally
possession.
left Firestone’s
See
original designer of the bead-
stone was the
(Second)
Restatement
duty
taper, low-flange
that it had a
402A(l)(b) (1965);
Armstrong Rubber
defective
warn their son about
proved
375. Firestone
it
Kelsey-Hayes product. A
nature of the
not introduce the wheel or a
manufacturer
not have a
to warn
does
into the channels of commerce.
It is not
another manufacturer’s
or instruct about
enough
original designer merely in
that the
might
products,
though
products
those
be
product
design into the
troduce a
of similar
used in connection with the manufacturer’s
Armstrong
stream of commerce. See
Rub
Walton,
226;
products.
796 S.W.2d at
own
proved
ber
617
Conspikacy
dispositive
in this case is not
issue
C. Civil
Barajases
Barajases’ claims. The
of all the
proved
it had no
allege that Firestone’s
specifically
Barajases. Accordingly,
to the
Firestone ne
15-degree
bead seat
Barajases’
gated
conspiracy
civil
claim as
flange height
is the
feature
with low
conspiracy
of law.
is an inten
matter
Civil
be-
permits
the mismatch
of the wheel
For
Massey,
tort.
652
tional
S.W.2d
in this
tire and wheel that occurred
tween
arise,
parties
must
a civil
explode.
that caused the tire to
case and
wrongful
of the
or
conduct at
be aware
harm
issue, then,
is not whether Firestone
beginning
agreement. Triplex
manufactured,
particu-
designed,
or sold the
Communications, 900
at 719. Be
S.W.2d
Firestone,
case,
lar wheel in this
but whether
intent, parties
conspiracy requires
cause a
component part of a
solely
as a
conspire
negligent. Triplex
cannot
to be
injury,
product
can
liable in
that causes
Communications, 900
at 720 n. 2.
S.W.2d
negligence for its
or
Rogers
The court of
relied on
v. design.
Reynolds
R.J.
Tobacco
volve a
distinct intentional tort to
liability
placing
on the defendant
into
rests
Barajas,
impose liability. See
895
S.W.2d
product.
the stream of commerce
defective
However,
Communications,
Triplex
in
Armstrong
Urquidez,
Rubber
570
Co.
expressly disapproved Rogers
this Court
(Tex.1978).
374, 376
Firestone did
S.W.2d
conspir
the extent it held there can be a civil
any
place
into the stream of
acy
negligent.
Triplex
to be
See
Communi
Rather,
royalty-
by granting a
commerce.
cations, 900
at 720 n. 2.
license,
only placed
free
in the stream of commerce.
VI. SUMMARY
may,
that a non-manufacturer
under
note
upon
specific
unique
Based
facts of
circumstances,
certain
be liable in the same
negated
we hold Firestone
an es-
manner as a manufacturer or seller of a
sential element of each of the
(Sec
product.
defective
See
Restatement
proved,
of action.
causes
as a
(1965) (Selling
ond)
400
as Own
design,
matter of
that it did not
manu-
Another).
Product
Made
For
Chattel
facture,
all
or sell
or a
example,
may
a trademark licensor
be liable
Jimmy Barajas’
wheel that caused
death.
li-
apparent
an
manufacturer when the
as
appeals’ judgment,
the court
We reverse
significantly
manu
censor is
involved
Barajases
and render
take
facturing, marketing, or distribution of the
nothing from Firestone.
Goodyear
defective
See Torres v.
88,
163 Ariz.
786 P.2d
Tire & Rubber
ENOCH, J.,
opinion, concurring
an
filed
(1990) (trademark
939,
sig
945
licensor
dissenting
part.
nificantly
process
participates
the overall
ENOCH, Justice, concurring and
consumers,
which the
reaches
dissenting.
right
incidents of
who has the
to control the
liable under
misconstrues the
al- manufacture or distribution is
Court
(Second));
legations.
dispute
There is no
between the
section 402A of
Restatement
Plus,
parties
that Firestone did not
manu- Burkert v. Petrol
Conn.
(1990) (trademark licensor,
facture,
ab
particular
or sell the
that A.2d
Barajas.
any
production,
mar
any
sent
involvement
killed
Nor is there
product, is
dispute
keting,
that Firestone did
the 15-
or distribution of defective
negli
tort
degree
flange
with low
not liable
Inc.,
Uniroyal,
height.
gence); Connelly v.
75 Ill.2d
The fact that Firestone did not de-
343, 351,
manufacture,
N.E.2d
sign,
particular
or sell
27 Ill.Dec.
*10
(1979) (trademark
purchased
grocery
at a
licensor liable in strict lia
soda bottle he had
designed
cap
the bottle
but did
bility
integral part
marketing
as
of the
enter
store. Alcoa
participation
profits reaped
cap
in
not manufacture or sell the bottle
or the
prise and
manufacture,
design,
by placing
product in
bottle. Alcoa did
a defective
the stream
machine,
commerce);
Queen
capping
designed
Dairy
sell a bottle
v.
Stanford
Prods.,
process
capping
for
bottles.
(Tex.App
and marketed a
. -Aus
n.r.e.) (trademark
in
expressly defined the issue
tin
writ ref 'd
licensor The Court
duty
by “designer
is
terms of the
owed
who
authorized use of trade name was
Alm,
manufacturer.”
prod
not an “actual vendor” of the defective
not a
recognized
590. The Court first
de
uct under section 400 of the Restatement
(Second));
Rockwell, Annotation,
signer
not also the manufacturer
also
who is
see
duty
develop a
Liability
Injury
should share the same
safe
Trademark Licensor’s
for
design.
It makes little sense to
Allegedly
or Death
Due to
in Licensed
Id.
Defect
Product,
(1990);
purchased
manufacturer who
or
Firestone did not
II
particular wheel at issue
this case
sell the
negligent
for a
claim.
is irrelevant
however,
agree,
with the
do not
Court’s
feature of the wheel
Barajases’ negligence
treatment
alleged to be defective and
to have
products liability,
claims. Unlike strict
liabil
Barajas’s
caused
death.
ity
negligence
premised
placing a
is not
ordinary
duty
care
had a
to exercise
com
into the stream of
defective
taper.
15-degree bead seat
in Alm v. Aluminum Co.
merce. The Court
Alm,
But Firestone product. role in this case is er’s asserting only manufacturer, it not designer. because a but as a not as manufacture, particular sell the wheel in- duty Aim recognizes designer’s a plainly duty volved it owed no design. warn of hazards of its Barajas. recognized duty Aim a of non- n n ‡ n ‡ # manufacturing designers ordinary to exercise sum, correctly concludes that Court duty design care in the of a This lia- is not liable in strict dependent placed on whether Firestone bility summary judgment evi- because injury-causing product into the stream of dence establishes that Firestone did not de- commerce, but from Fire- rather derives manufacture, sign, particular or sell designer. duty stone’s actions as should That wheel involved this case. designer designed be the whether same evidence, however, judgment does not entitle or a al- entire Ba- Firestone to on the leged injury. to have been the cause of Be- rajases’ negligence because those claims designed cause Firestone the feature of the dependent having placed claims are explo- to have caused the tire particular product at in the stream issue 15-degree sion—the bead seat with low duty ordinary designer’s of commerce. A flange height duty owed a of or- —Firestone duty con- dinary care and to warn derive from the design. care in its duty designing product; duct in a should design The fact that Firestone’s has be- simply not vanish because the is de- industry an come standard does not militate veloped by than the manufac- someone other against duty. Liability a should not be more turer. widely adopted limited the more a industry. contrary, an To the Aim, designer in Like the Firestone de- up who offers for a product alleged to signed the feature of the through royalty-free hopes license Jimmy Barajas’s have caused death. The gaining widespread adoption Barajases’ allega- Court misconstrues the duty. industry militates in favor and, provides doing, in so a false basis tions recognizes duty Aim. designer’s distinguishing
Aim also owed a de- signer’s duty ordinary warn of hazards associated with the care summary judg- The Court stated: It was not entitled to warn. Barajases’ negligence claims. ment on the design- distinguish There is no reason to reasons, I concur in that er, For these knowledge who has intimate de- retailer, judgment reversing the court of signed the Court’s product, from a wholesaler judgment rendering judgment appeals’ the clo- or manufacturer. Alcoa system. sys- sure It is the failure of that for Firestone on the plaintiffs] injury. from the Court’s tem which caused claims. dissent [the *12 reversing rendering on the
negligence claims. would affirm the rever-
sal
negligence claims and claims to remand those
the trial court. Petitioner, STELLY,
Ermon PAPANIA, Respondent.
Michael
No. 96-0274.
Supreme Court of Texas.
June 1996.
Rehearing Sept. Overruled