## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 31 29

__ __ __ __ __ _

Mau d Led ha ge n Gaz al , in he r *

cap aci ty as th e le ga l p ers on al *

rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f *
Nab il Nasr i Gaz al

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s App el la nt

, * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

v. *

Bo eh rin ge r In ge lh ei m

Ph arm aceu ti cal s, *

In c.; P fiz er, In c.; P ha rm aci a *
Co rp or at io n; Ph arm aci a &Up joh n, LLC, *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: May 10 , 20 11
Fi le d: Ju ly 28, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Nab il Gazal fil ed to rt cl ai m s an d a br each of warra nt y cl ai m ag ai ns t Bo eh rin ge r

In ge lh ei m Ph arm aceu ti cal s, In c.; Pfi zer, In c.; Ph arm aci a Co rp or at io n; an d Ph arm aci a

& Upjo hn Co m

pa ny, LLC (p ha rm a c e ut ic al co m pa ni es ). The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d 1

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Ro se nb au m , Uni te d St at e s D i s tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta , no w ret ire d.su m

m ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s, se e In re Mi rap ex Pro du ct s Liab il it y Lit ig at io n,

73 5 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 13 (D. Mi nn

. 20 10 ), whe reu po n Gazal fil ed th is ap pe al

. Fo ll owi ng
Gazal ’s de at h, hi s wid ow, Mau d Led ha ge n Gazal

, was ap po in te d as th e le ga l

rep res en ta ti ve of h is est at e to pro se cu te th e ap pe al . W e aff irm.

I.

Gazal li ve d in Aus tra li a, whe re he own ed an d op erat ed Gazco rp , a su cces sf ul

in du st ria l an d ret ai l de ve lo pm en t co rp or at io n, un ti l hi s de at h in 20 10

. I n 1 9 9 9

, he

be g a n t o ex pe rie nc e he al th pr ob le m s an d hi s do ct or s su sp ect ed th at he ha d

Park in so n’s di se as e

. G a z al own ed pr op ert y in Tex as an d de ci de d to se ek fu rth er

t r e a t m en t at th e Baylor Co ll eg e of Med ic in e’s Park in so n’s Dis eas e Cen te r an d

Mo ve m en t Dis or de rs Cl in ic (Baylo r ) in Hou st on

. In 20 02

, do ct or s at Baylor

di ag no se d Gazal wit h Pa r k i n s o n ’s di se as e an d pr es cri be d Mi rap ex as pa rt of hi s

tre at m en t. The dr ug red uc ed Gazal ’s sym pt om s bu t in du ced nu m ero us si de effe ct s,

in cl ud in g an xi et y at ta ck s, de pr es si on , in so m ni a, ag gr es si on , an d cl a u s t r o p ho bi a.
Sh or tl y aft er be gi nn in g hi s tre at m en t, Gazal be ga n to ga m bl e m uc h m or e th an he ha d

pr ev io us ly, an d hi s lo ss es in crea se d te n- fo ld

. He fir st men t i o n ed hi s in crea se d

ga m bl in g i n F eb ru ary 20 05 an d fi rs t re po rte d i t t o h is do ct or in Apri l 2 00 5.

In Ju ly 20 05

, th e Mayo Cl in ic pu bl is he d a st ud y su gg es ti ng a l i n k be twee n

Mi rap ex an d co m

pu ls iv e ga m

bl in g (th e Dod d/ Mayo st ud y ). And

, in Nov em be r 20 05

whi le Gazal was in Aus tra li a, on e o f h is do ct or s su sp ect ed th at Mi rap ex m ig ht be

res po ns ib le fo r hi s ga m

bl in g pr ob le m s. Gaz a l w a s ho sp it al iz ed fo r two week s an d

ceas ed ta ki ng th e dr ug , bu t ren ewed us e ag ai n on ce he was rel eas ed

. Gazal ad m it te d

th at at so m e po in t in la te 20 05

, he be cam e aware th at Mi rap ex was l i n k e d to

, an d

m ig ht cau se , com

pu ls iv e g am

bl in g.

Gazal wro te to two cas in os in Aus tra li a i n May 20 06

, req ue st in g th at th ey

refu se hi s bu si ne ss

. He as ke d th e sa m e of se ve ral acq ua in ta nc es wit h who m he ha d

-2

-pl ay ed card s. He co nt in ue d to ga m bl e, ho wev er, an d in Sep te m be r 20 07

, he ret ur ne d

to Baylor an d rep or te d th at he ha d lo st mi ll io ns of do ll ars an d was ex pe rie nc in g

fam il y pr ob le m s. His do ct or s at Baylor ren ewed hi s M i r a pe x pr es cri pt io n, an d he

co nt in ue d t o g am

bl e.

The fir st la rg e-s cal e syst e m at ic st ud y of Mi rap ex an d im pu ls e-co nt ro l

di so rd ers , cal le d th e Dom in io n St ud y , was pu bl is he d in Ju ne 20 08

. It co nc lu de d th at

pa ti en ts ta ki ng Mi rap ex ha d a ris k of de ve lo pi ng a ga m bl in g di so rd er an d th at th e ris k

was to o gr eat to be ex pl ai ne d by ch an c e o r o t h e r c a us es

. A few m on th s aft er th e

Dom in io n St ud y was pu bl is he d, Gazal ch eck ed in to a h o s p i t al to try ag ai n to wean

hi m se lf of

f Mi rap ex , bu t he res um ed ta ki ng it on ce he le ft th e ho sp it al

. In May 20 09

, he su ccee de d i n c eas in g h is us e o f th e d ru g. A m on th lat er, Gaza l fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t

th e p ha rm aceu ti cal co m

pa ni es in Texa s s ta te co ur t.

Gazal al le ge d a br each of warra n t y cl ai m , to ge th er wit h a nu m be r of to rt

cl ai m s, al l of whi ch fau lt ed th e ph arm aceu ti cal co m pa ni es fo r fai li ng to warn hi m th at

ta ki ng Mi rap ex co ul d le ad to co m pu ls iv e ga m

bl in g. Alt og et he r he so ug ht m or e th an $2 0 m il li on in da m ag es

. The ph arm aceu ti cal co m pa ni es rem ov ed th e cas e to fed eral

co ur t. In Mar ch 20 10

, th e Ju di ci al Pan el on Mu lt id is tri ct Lit ig at io n tra ns ferr ed it to

Mi nn es ot a as pa rt o f th e Mi rap ex Pro du ct s Li ab il it y Mu lt id is tri ct Lit ig at io n.

The ph arm aceu ti cal co m

pa ni es m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, co nt en di ng th at

Gazal ’s cl ai m s ha d accr ue d m or e th an two y ears be fo re he f i l e d su it an d were

th eref or e ti m e-b arre d. Gazal rejo in ed th at hi s cl ai m s ha d no t accr ue d un ti l th e

Dom in io n St ud y was pu bl is he d in 20 08 an d t h a t

, in th e al te rn at iv e, th e two -y ear

st at ut e of li m it at io ns sh ou ld be to ll ed un de r th e co nt in ui ng t o r t do ct rin e, th e “ op en

co ur ts ” pr ov is io n of th e Tex as Co ns ti tu ti on , th e rip en es s d o c t r i n e, or m en ta l

di sa bi li ty.

-3

-The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Gazal be cam e aware of hi s ga m bl in g pr ob le m no

la te r th an 20 03 an d of th e po ss ib le li nk be twee n Mi rap ex an d pa th ol og ic al ga m bl in g

n o la te r th an 20 05

. It reject ed Gazal ’s accr ua l th eo ry an d th e va rio us t o l l i n g

arg um e n t s h e s e t fo rth

, co nc lu de d th at hi s cl ai m s were ti m e-b arre d, an d gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t to th e ph arm aceu ti cal co m pa ni es on th e to rt cl ai m s. It al so
di sm is se d th e br each of warra nt y cl ai m aft er co nc lu di ng th at Gazal ha d no t gi ve n th e ph arm aceu ti cal co m

pa ni es th e req ui red no ti ce b efo re fi li ng th e cl ai m

.

II.

We r e vi ew de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t. S o u t h

Dak ot a v. U.S. Dep ’t of In te rio r, 4 2 3 F

. 3 d 79 0, 79 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te whe n th e ev id en ce, vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

no nm ov in g p art y , pre se nt s n o g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact . Fed . R. Civ

. P. 56

. A

di sp ut e is ge nu in e if th e ev id en ce is su ch th at it c o u l d c a us e a reas on ab le jury to

ret ur n a ve rd ic t fo r ei th er pa rty; a fact is m at eri al if it s res ol ut io n affe ct s th e ou tc om e

of th e cas e. And ers on v. Lib ert y Lob by, Inc., 4 77 U.S. 24 2, 2 48 , 25 2 (1 98 6)

.

A. Stat ut e o f Lim it at io ns

Bec au se th is su it was rem ov ed to fed eral co ur t un de r di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on , we

ap pl y th e su bs ta nt iv e la w o f Tex as , i nc lu di ng it s s ta tu te s o f li m it at io n. Se e Walke r

v. Arm co St eel Co rp

. , 4 4 6 U.S. 74 0 (1 98 0)

. The pa rti es ag ree th at in Tex as , a

pr od uc ts li ab il it y su it m

us t be co m

m en ced wit hi n two y ears aft er th e cau se of act io n

accr ue s, se e Tex

. Ci v. Prac

. & Rem

. Co de Ann

. § 16 .00 3, bu t di sp ut e whe n th is

pa rti cu la r cau se of a ct io n a ccru ed

.

App e l l a n t mai nt ai ns th at Gazal su ffer ed no le ga l in jury an d th at no cau se of

act io n accr ue d un t i l a c a u s al li nk be twee n Mi rap ex an d co m pu ls iv e be ha vi or was

su bs ta nt ia te d i n t he Dom in io n St ud y in Ju ne 20 08

. The ph arm aceu ti cal co m pa ni es

-4

-co un te r th at th e cl ai m accr ue d in 20 05 whe n th e al le ge dl y wro ng fu l act s oc cu rred an d

th e al le ge d i nju rie s re su lt ed

.

App el la nt co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t m is co nc ei ve d t he na tu re o f Gazal ’s

arg um en t whe n it to o k h i m t o be in vo ki ng a ve rs io n of th e di sc ov ery ru le

, whi ch

ap pl ie s when th e un de rlyin g i nju ry is lat en t o r “ in he ren tl y un di sc ov erab le .” Ch il ds

v. Hau ss eck er, 9 7 4 S

. W.2d 31

, 36 (Tex

. 19 98 ). The di sc ov ery ru le de fers accr ua l

un ti l th e pl a i n t i f

f d i s co ve rs th e in

jury an d is aware th at it was li ke ly cau se d by th e

wro ng fu l act s of

an ot he r. Id. at 40

. App el la nt m ai nt ai ns th at Gazal ’s t he or y is on e

o f le ga l in

jury, no t di sc ov ery, un de r whi ch a pl ai nt iff m us t ha ve su ffer ed a l e g a l l y

co gn iz ab le in

jury for a ca us e o f act io n t o h av e acc ru ed

.

Ch il ds ad dr es se d st at ut es of li m it at io n in la te nt oc cu pa ti on al di se as e cas es

. Id

.
at 43

. It m en ti on ed ob

jecti ve ve rif

ic at io n of cau sa ti on as a fact or in de te rm in in g th e
da te of accr ua l, bu t in no way en do rs ed th e pr op os it i o n t h a t s uc h ve rif ic at io n m us t

oc cu r in a sp eci fic fo rm su ch as ep id em io lo gi cal st ud i e s

. M o reo ve r, th e co ur t

sp eci fic al ly ob se rv ed th at “t h e a c c r u a l of a cau se of act io n is no t de pe nd en t on a

co nf irmed m ed ic al d i a g n o si s” or ot he r su ch ve rif ic at io n. Id

. at 42

. Rat he r, fo r a
cl ai m to accr ue , a “ pl ai nt iff ’s sym pt om s m us t m an ife st th em se lv es to a de gr ee or fo r

a du rat io n th at wou ld pu t a r eas on ab le pe rs on on no ti ce t ha t h e o r sh e su ffer s fro m

s o me in jury,” su ch th at a reas on ab le pe rs on in pl ai nt iff ’s po si ti on ha ve kn own th a t

th e in jury w as cau se d b y an ot he r’s wro ng fu l ac ts . Id. at 40 . Like th e d is tri ct co ur t,

we do no t read Ch il ds as req ui rin g sp eci fic ep id em io lo gi cal ev id en ce be fo re a cl ai m

of th is type acc ru es

.

App el la nt as se rts th at an in jury is no t le ga ll y co gn iz a b l e u nt il an d un le ss it s

cau se can be asc ert ai ne d. In ot he r wor ds , “ a cau se of act io n do es no t accru e ab se nt

ev id en c e of cau sa l co nn ect io n.” App el la nt ’s Br. 20

. In a cas e of th is na tu re,

ap pe ll an t arg ue s, th e Tex as Su pr em e Co ur t req ui res th at

, to be sc ie nt ifi cal ly rel ia bl e,

cau sa ti on ev id en ce m

us t be ba se d on a pr op erl y de si gn ed ep id em io lo gi cal st ud y an d

-5

-in di cat e th at th e rel at iv e ris k of di se as e or in jury fo r th os e ex po se d to th e dr ug is m or e

th an do ub le th at of a co nt ro l po pu la ti on

. Mer rel l Dow Ph ar mac e u t i c a ls

, In c. v.

Hav ne r, 95 3 S.W .2d 70 6 (Tex

. 19 97 ). Thu s, th e arg um en t ru ns , Gazal ’s cl ai m wou ld

ha ve fai le d as a m at te r of la w un ti l th e 20 08 pu bl ic at io n of th e Dom in io n St ud y , whi ch m et th e p ro of

of c au sa ti on st an da rd all eg ed ly requ ire d b y Havn er.

Thi s arg um en t fai ls

, ho wev er, fo r we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at ob jecti ve

v e rif ic at io n of cau sa ti on , in th e fo rm of an ep id em io lo gi cal st ud y th at m eet s t h e

Hav ne r st an da rd

, is no t a pr ed ic at e th at m us t be es ta bl is he d fo r a cl ai m t o a c cru e.

H a vn er co ns id ered wha t weig ht ou gh t to be gi ve n to pa rti cu la r ep id em io lo gi cal

st ud ie s in de te rmi n i n g whe th er th e pl ai nt iff s’ cau sa ti on ev id en ce was le ga ll y

su ffi ci en t un de r th e “ m or e li ke ly th an no t” bu rd en of pr oo f. Id

. at 71 4- 24

. It di d no t

sp eak to th e m in im

um no ti ce a pl ai nt iff m

us t ha ve be fo re a pa rti cu la r cl ai m accr ue s

an d d oe s n ot be ar o n t he pa rti cu la r is su e b efo re u s.

Bas ed on th e un di sp ut ed fact s be fo re us , we co nc lu de th at Gazal was on no ti ce

of hi s in jury a n d o f i t s cau sa l co nn ect io n to hi s Mi rap ex pr es cri pt io n no la te r th an

20 05

. H e ha d acce ss to in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e cau se of hi s in crea se d ga m bl in g,

in cl ud in g hi s own ob se rv at io ns an d in si gh t g l e a n e d f ro m ta lk in g wit h hi s do ct or s.
His act io ns al so refl ect an aware ne ss of th e un de rlyin g cau se be hi nd hi s co m pu ls iv e
be ha vi or s. In 20 05

, he rep or te d hi s co m pu ls iv e ga m

bl in g to a do ct or an d li nk ed it to

Mi ra p e x

. Late r th at y ear, he was ho sp it al iz ed whi le at te m pt in g to ceas e hi s us e of

Mi rap ex

. In le tt ers he wro te to c a s i n o s in May 20 06

, he req ue st ed th at th ey no t

acce pt hi s bu si ne ss an d ex pl ai ne d th at hi s la ck of co nt ro l aro se as a ne ga ti ve si de

effe ct of hi s m ed ic at io n. In li gh t of th is ev id en ce, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at

th e cl ai m accr ue d m or e th an two y ears be fo re Gazal br ou gh t su it an d th us was ti m eba rred

.

-6

-B. Tol li ng

App el la nt co nt e n ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t to ll in g th e st at ut e of

li m it at io ns ba se d on th e co nt in ui ng to rt do ct rin e, th e “ op en co ur ts ” p ro vi si on in th e

Tex as Co ns ti tu ti on , th e ri pe ne ss do ct rin e, or Gazal ’s all eg ed m en ta l d is ab il it y

.

1. Th e Co nt in ui ng Tort Doct rin e

“ A c au se of a ct io n fo r a co nt in ui ng to rt d oe s n ot accr ue un ti l t he de fen da nt ’s

act ceas es .” Upjo hn Co . v . F reem an , 8 85 S.W .2d 53 8, 5 42 (Tex . App . 19 94 ). Yet,

as th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e cl ear in it s di sc us si on of th is cas e, th e do ct rin e ap pl ie s on ly

so lo ng as th e pl ai nt iff is un aware of th e effe ct th e dr ug is ha vi ng on hi m

. Id

. at 54 2;

se e al so All go od v. R.J

. Reynol ds Tob acco Co

., 80 F.3 d 16 8, 17 0 (5 th Ci r. 19 96 )
(“ Tex as ha s li m it ed it s ap pl ic at io n to cas es whe re th e cau sa l rel at io n be twee n act io n

an d in jury rem ai ne d un kn own to th e pl ai nt iff .”) (ci ti ng Upjo hn Co .). Bec au se Gazal

be cam e aware of t he effe ct of Mi rap ex m or e th an two y ears be fo re he file d su it , th e

co nt in ui ng to rt d oc tri ne do es no t s av e h is cla im

.

2. Th e “ Ope n C ou rts ” Pro vi si on

App el la nt m ai nt ai ns th at de nyin g Gazal th e op po rtu ni ty to pu rs ue hi s c l a i m
vi ol at ed a pr ov is io n of th e Tex as Co ns ti tu ti on st at in g th at “ [a]ll co ur ts sh al l be op en ”

an d th at ev ery pe rs on “ sh al l ha ve a rem ed y by du e co ur se of la w.” Tex

. Co ns t. art

. 1,
§ 13

. Acco rd in g to ap pe ll an t, th e pr ov is io n is in te nd ed to in va li da te st at ut e s of

li mi t a ti on th at cu t of

f a pe rs on ’s rig ht to su e be fo re th e pe rs on ha s a reas on ab le

op po rtu ni ty to di sc ov er th e wro ng an d br in g su it

. See Nels on v. Kru se n, 67 8 S.W .2d

91 8, 9 23 (Tex . 19 84 ).

W e co nc lu de th at th e op en co ur ts pr ov is io n do es no t op erat e to sa ve Gazal ’s

cl ai m , fo r th e do ct rin e is de si gn ed to pr ot ect a pl ai nt iff who h a s ye t t o di sc ov er or

-7

-be co m e aware of hi s pu ta ti ve in jury. See Mar tz v. W ey erh au se r C o ., 96 5 S.W .2d

58 4, 58 9 (Tex

. App

. 19 98 ) (“ The ‘ope n cou rts ’ pr ov is io n op erat es to to ll th e st at ut e

of li m it at io ns in si tu at io ns in whi ch it is im po ss ib le to di sc ov er th e in jury an d ti m el y

fil e su it du rin g th e li m it at io ns pe rio d

. ” )

. Gazal kn ew th at he ha d be en in jure d, an d

wha te ve r di ffi cu lt y

he face d i n p ro vi ng hi s t he or y can no t n eg at e th is fact

.

3. Th e Ri pe ne ss Doct rin e

App el la nt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng th at th e

m an ife st at io n of a se ve re ga m bl in g pr ob le m in 20 06 ren de red Gazal ’s cl ai m s rip e at

th at ti m e. Fro m th e ev id en ce th at we ha ve reco un te d ab ov e, w e c o nc lu de th at th e
di st ric t cou rt di d no t err in de te rm in in g th at th e fact s were su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo pe d to

es ta bl is h a co nc ret e in

jury in 2 00 6.

4. Me nt al Sta bi li ty

App el la nt co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng no ge nu in e is su e of

fact ex is ts reg ard in g wh et he r Gazal was of “ un so un d m in d” un de r § 1 6.0 00 1 o f th e

Tex as Ci vi l Prac ti ce an d Rem ed ie s Co de

. Pers on s of un so un d m in d are th os e “ who

a r e men ta ll y in co m

pe te nt to care fo r th em se lv es or m an ag e th ei r pr op ert y an d

fin an ci al affa irs .” Harg rav es v. Arm co Fo od s, In c., 89 4 S.W .2d 54 6, 54 7 (Tex

. App

. 19 95 )

. Th e t o ll in g pr ov is io n on whi ch ap pe ll an t rel ie s is in te nd ed to pr ov id e su ch

p ers on s wit h “ acce ss to th e co ur ts ” an d to acco un t fo r th ei r “ in ab il it y to pa rti ci pa t e

in

, co nt ro l, or ev en un de rs ta nd th e pr og res si on an d di sp os it io n of th ei r la wsu it .” Ru iz

v. Co no co , Inc ., 86 8 S .W .2d 75 2, 7 55 (Tex . 19 93 ).

To ex te nd th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns on th is ba si s, a pl ai nt iff m us t pr od uc e ei th er 1) sp eci fic ev id en ce th at wou ld en ab le th e co ur t to fin d th at he di d no t ha ve th e

m en ta l cap aci ty to pu rs ue li ti ga ti on ; or 2) a fact -b as ed ex pe rt op in io n to th at effe ct

. See Ch av ez v. Dav il a, 14 3 S. W. 3 d 1 5 1

, 1 56 (Tex

. App

. 20 04 ). The di st ric t co ur t

-8

-fo un d th at th e pr of fere d ev id en ce on th is is su e—a ffi da vi ts fro m Gazal

, hi s wife

, hi s

s o n , an d hi s tre at in g ph y si ci an —was in su ffi ci en t to al lo w a reas on ab le jury t o

co nc lud e tha t Gazal la ck ed th e req ui si te m en ta l cap aci ty du rin g th e lim ita tio ns pe ri od.

W e ag ree.

The affi da vi ts in q ue st io n po rtr ay an in di vi du al who se il ln es s an d erra ti c
be ha vi or cau se d hi m pa in an d crea te d em ot io na l tu rm oi l a mon g hi s fri en ds an d

fam il y

. In th e wor ds of hi s tre at in g ph y si ci an , Gazal was “ co m pl et el y un ab le to

m an ag e hi s co m

pu ls iv e be ha vi or ,” “ ve rb al ly ab us iv e an d un reas on ab le to ward hi s

w i f e a n d ch il dr en ,” an d ov erco m e by “ an xi et y , de pr es si on , ga m bl in g ad di ct io n,
ab no rm al ad di ct io n an d ot he r ge ne ral iz ed be ha vi or al pr ob le m s.” His so n de sc rib ed

si m il ar be ha vi or al pr ob le m s an d st at ed th at hi s fat he r “ di dn ’t ev en se em li ke th e sa m e

pe rs on .” His wife st at ed th at it “ se em ed as i f [h e] had lo st hi s m in d.”

On th e ot he r ha nd

, Gazal m an ag ed t o r u n an d m an ag e a ve ry pr of it ab le

co m pa ny, to se ek tre at m en t fir st fo r hi s di se as e an d th en fo r th e si d e e f f e c t s he

pe rcei ve d wer e cau se d b y Mi rap ex , and to reac h o ut to cas in os an d fri en ds to try to

pr ev e n t f u r t h er ga m

bl in g lo ss es

. At no po in t di d an y of hi s do ct or s qu es ti on hi s

co m pe te nc e to care for

hi m se lf a nd m an ag e hi s affai rs , no r di d anyon e ta ke st ep s to

ha ve hi m de cl ared le ga ll y in co m pe te nt

. W it ho ut in an y m an n e r a t t e mp ti ng to

m in im iz e th e di ffi cu lt ie s th at Gazal face d in th e la st y ears of hi s li fe or th e pa in th at

hi s fam il y ex pe rie nc ed as a res ul t, we co nc lu de th at th e affi da vi ts di d no t rai se a

ge nu in e is su e of fact as to whe th er Gazal ’s be ha vi or al pr ob le m s an d si de effe ct s were

so se ve re as to ren de r hi m le ga ll y in co m pe te nt

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e to ll in g pr ov is io ns

of § 1 6.0 00 1 a re u na va il ab le

.

C. W arra nt y

Cla im

Fi na ll y , ap pe ll an t clai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng th at Gazal

ha d no t sa ti sf

ie d th e req ui rem en t th at pu rch as ers gi ve no ti ce of a br each of warra nt y

-9

-cl ai m pr io r to fil in g su it

. Tex

. Bu s. and Co m . Cod e Ann . § 2 .60 7( c)(1 ). At is su e is

whe th er Gazal

, as a su bp ur ch as er, was req ui red to gi ve no ti ce to th e m an uf act ur er as

a p reco nd it io n o f br in gi ng su it

.

The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at a sp li t of au th or it y ex is ts on th is is su e
wit hi n th e Tex as in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co ur ts

. It co nc lu de d th at th e Tex as Su pr em e

Co ur t, if co nf

ro nt ed wit h th e qu es ti on , wou ld ad op t th e m ajor it y po si ti on an d req ui re

th at a su bp ur ch as er giv e th e se ll er pri or no ti ce of his br each of warra nt y cl ai m

. W e

ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr ed ic ti on an d th us co nc lu de th at it di d no t err in

gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt s o n t ha t cl ai m

.

III.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-