Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-SSP-Partners--and-Metro-Novelties-Inc-Tex-2008-product-liability-indemnity.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:43:51+00:00

Document:
appeals’, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The parents of a five-year-old boy killed in a house fire sued SSP Partners and Gladstrong Investments (U.
except when necessary to distinguish between them.
• Was Gladstrong USA a “manufacturer” of WAX-brand lighters as defined by the statute?
“manufacturer” as defined by statute?
• Is an entity liable as a manufacturer if it is part of a “single business enterprise” with a manufacturer?
• Is an apparent manufacturer of a product a “manufacturer” as defined by statute?
• Must upstream sellers indemnify downstream sellers for product liability?
• Did Gladstrong USA sell the lighter that caused the accident?
Company, Limited and exported exclusively by Gladstrong Hong Kong, both Chinese companies.
Product Code that Gladstrong Hong Kong owns and by their distinctive labels, markings, and slender shape.
stands for Gladstrong Investments, Limited), and had the slim shape of a WAX-brand lighter.
statutory indemnity, and that there was some evidence Gladstrong USA was an apparent manufacturer.
for further development of the record.
SSP and Gladstrong USA both petitioned this Court for review.
suggests nothing about the scope of the indemnity obligation under chapter 82.
relies was put forward by the court of appeals in Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Taylor Rental Center.
profits and losses between corporations.
SSP asserts that it offered evidence of all these factors.
imposition of liability is limited by statute to situations involving actual fraud.
Texas law regarding the theory of alter ego for disregarding corporate structure”.
two cases, Murphy Bros. Chevrolet Co. v. East Oakland Auto Auction and Allright Texas, Inc. v. Simons.
constituted in reality a single business enterprise.” The only authority the court cited was Murphy Bros.
renting equipment from the plaintiff.
(6) where the corporate fiction is relied upon as a protection of crime or to justify wrong.
and injustice are not components of the single business enterprise theory stated in Paramount Petroleum.
services, and finances. There is nothing abusive or unjust about any of these practices in the abstract.
Different entities may coordinate their activities without joint liability.
evaluation of the policies supporting the principle of limited liability.
board of directors, or its shareholders.
under this Act or another applicable statute.
Gladstrong USA to meet any indemnity obligation Gladstrong Hong Kong may have.
for reading the statute so broadly.
We next consider whether Gladstrong USA is liable for common law indemnity.
USA even if Gladstrong USA did not manufacture WAX lighters.
properly made to discharge the liability. We noted in City of San Antonio v. Talerico, 98 Tex. 151, 81 S.W.
on which common law indemnity is predicated.
therefore be remanded for further consideration of the issue.
Gladstrong USA on this ground.
omission, such as negligently modifying or altering the product, for which the seller is independently liable.”).
to protect the innocent retailer in the chain of distribution.”).
 169 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005).
 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.002(a).
motions to join Gladstrong Hong Kong in the litigation.
 The court of appeals mentioned both arguments but addressed neither. 169 S.W.3d at 36; id. at 42 (op. on reh’g).
 Id. at 38; id. at 42-44 (op. on reh’g).
condition in which it is sold.”).
any component part thereof in the stream of commerce.”).
commercial purpose, in the stream of commerce for use or consumption a product or any component part thereof.”).
 General Motors Corp. v. Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. 199 S.W.3d 249, 256 (Tex. 2006).
 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.001(4).
 See Hilco Elec. Coop. v. Midlothian Butane Gas Co., 111 S.W.3d 75, 81 (Tex. 2003) (“[T]he rule of ejusdem generis . . .
persons or things, the meaning of the general words will be restricted to the particular designation.”).
research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.”).
 712 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
funded the WAX lighter recall.
The court of appeals stated that Gladstrong USA held itself out as the manufacturer of WAX lighters. 169 S.W.3d at 38-39.
Gladstrong USA contends that this misstates the record, that only Gladstrong Hong Kong held itself out as the manufacturer.
 Able, 35 S.W.3d at 613; Blount v. Bordens, Inc., 910 S.W.2d 931, 933 (Tex. 1995); Triplex Communc’ns, Inc. v. Riley, 900 S.
(Second) of Torts § 491 cmt. c (1965)).
shareholders, officers, and directors from liability for corporate obligations . . . .”).
 Castleberry, 721 S.W.2d at 271.
 Tex. Bus. Corp. Act art. 2.21 (expires Jan. 1, 2010); Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 21.223 (effective Jan. 1, 2006).
(noting that this Court “has never considered the ‘single business enterprise’ concept in any detail”).
 Southern Union Co., 129 S.W.3d at 87.
 437 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Civ. App.— El Paso, 1969, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
 501 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
 86 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1935, writ ref’d), rev’d and remanded, 304 U.S. 224 (1938), op. on remand, 129 S.
W.2d 1164 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1939), rev’d and remanded, 153 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. 1941).
 Murphy Bros. Chevrolet Co., 437 S.W.2d at 276.
 Id. (quoting 86 S.W.2d at 492).
 Id. at 492; accord Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 128 S.W.2d 9, 11-12 (Tex. 1939).
 501 S.W.2d 145, 146-147 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
 712 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
 721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1986).
 Id. at 271-272 (footnotes and citations omitted).
statutes governing business entities effective January 1, 2006, were recodified in substantially similar form in Tex. Bus. Orgs.
manufactured by another is subject to the same liability as though the seller or distributor were the product’s manufacturer.”).
 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.002(e)(2).
entitled to indemnity for products liability only if his liability is entirely vicarious and he is not himself independently culpable.
permitted to recover from the wrongdoer.”).
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, cmt. a (1965)).
 Humana Hosp. Corp. v. American Med. Sys., Inc., 785 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex. 1990) (citation omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 82
 v. 
 § 82
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 491
 art. 2
 § 21
 v. 
 § 82
 § 402
 v.