Timpte Indus. v. Gish - 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009)

Rule:

To recover for a products liability claim alleging a design defect, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the product was defectively designed so as to render it unreasonably dangerous; (2) a safer alternative design existed; and (3) the defect was a producing cause of the injury for which the plaintiff seeks recovery. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 82.005(a). To determine whether a product was defectively designed so as to render it unreasonably dangerous, Texas courts have long applied a risk-utility analysis that requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the utility of the product to the user and to the public as a whole weighed against the gravity and likelihood of injury from its use; (2) the availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be unsafe or unreasonably expensive; (3) the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without seriously impairing its usefulness or significantly increasing its costs; (4) the user's anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability because of general public knowledge of the obvious condition of the product, or of the existence of suitable warnings or instructions; and (5) the expectations of the ordinary consumer. 

Facts:

Robert Gish was seriously injured when he fell from the top of a trailer into which he was attempting to load fertilizer. He sued Timpte Industries, the manufacturer of the trailer, alleging, among other things, that several features of the trailer were defectively designed, rendering the trailer unreasonably dangerous. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment in Timpte's favor, but the court of appeals reversed.

Issue:

Was there sufficient evidence to show that the top two rungs of the ladder were a design defect that rendered the trailer unreasonably dangerous?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court reversed the appellate court's judgment and ordered reinstated the trial court's judgment. For design defect purposes under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 82.005(a), there was no evidence that the top rail of the trailer was unreasonably dangerous in light of its use and purpose, plus the risk of falling from the top of the trailer while trying to balance on a five-inch strip of extruded aluminum was obvious. The court had long recognized that, in the context of an obvious risk, the duty to warn of defects was distinct from the duty to design safe products. The court saw no reason to discard the risk-utility analysis that Texas courts had long-applied to encourage manufacturers to reach an optimum level of safety in designing products. Risk-utility factors confirmed that the trailer's design was not defective as a matter of law. There was no evidence that the top two rungs of the ladder were a design defect that rendered the trailer unreasonably dangerous.