Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-JCM-Electronics-Inc-v-Garza-Tex-2008-Concurrency-by-Jefferson-product-liability-proportionate-resposibility-UCC-breach-of-implied-warranty-as-tort.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:12:07+00:00

Document:
Jefferson's Separate Opinion in JCW Electronics, Inc. vs. Garza (Tex.
inmate precludes recovery of damages.
write separately to explore the proper submission of that issue.
principles apply to UCC-based implied warranty claims. In Signal Oil & Gas Co.
associated with theories of negligence. Rourke v. Garza, 530 S.W.2d 794 (Tex.
Cir. 1962); Rasmus v. A. O. Smith Corporation, 158 F. Supp. 70 (D.Iowa 1958).
Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Universal Oil Prods., 572 S.W.2d 320, 327-28 (Tex. 1978).
cause of the damages than the seller’s breach.” Id. (citing Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.
of Sept. 2, 1987, 70th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 2, § 2.04, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 40, 40.
Partners v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 695 (Tex. 2007) (Jefferson, C.J., dissenting).
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.003 (emphasis added).
more than one of those named below, then answer the following question. . . .
implied warranty and that breach proximately caused the buyer’s damages.
recovery in a UCC-based breach of implied warranty claim. Signal Oil, 572 S.W.
inquiry when apportioning fault for such a claim.
him. Under chapter 33, Montez’s comparative negligence bars Garza’s claim.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001.
concur in the Court’s judgment.
the implied warranty claim at issue here. We need not engage in that debate today, however.
factual basis to which the questions refer.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 § 33
 § 33