Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-New-Texas-Auto-Auction-Services-Gomez-de-Hernandez-by-Brister-auctioneer-liability-defective-car.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:04:35+00:00

Document:
Justice Scott A. Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.
strict liability or negligence claims. We address each claim in turn.
“the most influential section of any Restatement of the Law on any topic,” and perhaps in all of tort jurisprudence.
products strictly liable for physical harm they cause to consumers.
recovery to users or consumers of a defective product, we long ago extended it to innocent bystanders as well.
manufacturer to be the one who stands behind it.
show who “introduces” a product to a crowd but has nothing to do with making it.
The court of appeals also pointed to chapter 82 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code to support its conclusion.
But that chapter was not intended to replace section 402A or the common law except in limited circumstances.
reflects a legislative intent to restrict liability for defective products to those who manufacture them.
do so. Section 402A applies to those whose business is selling, not everyone who makes an occasional sale.
few weeks before the auction took place. We agree with the trial court that Big H had no such duty on the facts here.
the risk, or a right to control the actor whose conduct precipitated the harm.
potential defects, notify the public, and make necessary repairs.
some have to be towed on and off the auction block.
at the auction, prepare the cars for display, and sell them to the public would have at least the same access.
duty to warn of known dangers does not impose a legal duty to discover and remedy unknown dangers too.
negligence. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstate the trial court’s take-nothing judgment for Big H.
 Brock v. Jones, 8 Tex. 78, 79-80 (1852) (“The auctioneer may be the agent of both parties.”).
 Big H Auto Auction is the assumed name of defendant New Texas Auto Auction Services, L.P.
 The car’s mileage was listed as 34,075 miles rather than the actual 84,075 miles.
 Progresso Motors is the assumed name of defendant Eleazar Perez.
Lorezo Guttierez Hernandez, Victor Manuel Maldonado Castañon, Pedro Alfonso Castillo Cardenas, and Jacinto Loyde Frayde.
judicial opinions more often than any other section of any Restatement”).
 416 S.W.2d 787, 789 (Tex. 1967).
 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A(1) (emphasis added).
 McKisson, 416 S.W.2d at 790 n.3 (“Strict liability in tort lies against a distributor as well as a manufacturer.”).
 Id. (“Strict liability in tort lies against a distributor as well as a manufacturer.”).
 Rourke v. Garza, 530 S.W.2d 794, 800 (Tex. 1975).
benefit accompanied a sale of goods or services, and thus fell under section 402A).
dangerous products . . . .”).
inapplicable to tire sent to test track for testing).
 Firestone Steel, 927 S.W.2d at 616.
inapplicable to tire designer that licensed concept royalty-free).
 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. c (1965); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 98, at 692-93 (5th ed.
proportion to the parties’ relative abilities to prevent or to reduce those costs is economically inefficient”); Boatland of Houston, Inc. v.
Injuries? A Legal and Economic Analysis, 36 Sw. L.J. 831, 848 (1982).
 Restatement (Third) of Torts § 1 (1998).
 Id. cmt. g (emphasis added).
(Tex. 1996); Rourke v. Garza, 530 S.W.2d 794, 800 (Tex. 1975).
 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.001(3).
614 (“It is not enough that the seller merely introduced products of similar design and manufacture into the stream of commerce.”).
any product which is not subject to this section.”).
product that injured plaintiff was nevertheless entitled to indemnity).
law in effect immediately before the change in law made by [the above provisions], and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.”).
the usual course of business, such as execution sales, bankruptcy sales, bulk sales, and the like.”); see also Galindo v. Precision Am.
Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1219 (5th Cir. 1985).
694 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984); Tauber-Arons Auctioneers Co. v. Superior Court, 161 Cal. Rptr. 789, 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
 Tri v. J.T.T., 162 S.W.3d 552, 563 (Tex. 2005).
 Graff v. Beard, 858 S.W.2d 918, 920 (Tex. 1993).
Owner Should Know I (2006), available at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/recallprocess.cfm.
potential for fire, cooling-fan defects that could injure mechanics working on engines, and windshield-wiper defects).
 Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jefferson Assocs., Ltd., 896 S.W.2d 156, 161 (Tex. 1995).
 Pelnar v. Rosen Sys., Inc., 964 F. Supp. 1277, 1284 (E.D. Wis. 1997).
dangerous situation, he owes no legal duty to render assistance.”).

References: v. 
 § 402
 v. 
 § 402
 § 98
 v.

 § 1
 v. 
 § 82
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.