Court Opinion

ID: 9682888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:19:05.292485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:42.908322
License: Public Domain

KEITH, Justice,
concurring.
The dissent has now taken the ultimate step in product liability cases. If followed, the manufacturer is now an insurer and no longer must a plaintiff establish that a product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s hands. The only authority for such a far-reaching change in the law are two food poisoning cases from this court, one of which is an unreported case.1
This unprecedented step is taken in a case where, to use the language of our Supreme Court in Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates, 451 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tex.1970), there is no more than “a glimmer of evidence to support the plaintiffs’ position.” If a manufacturer’s position has been changed into that of an insurer, and the plaintiff is no longer required to prove (either directly or circumstantially) a defect in the product, such a holding should come from our Supreme Court and not from an intermediate court.
Under the fact structure of this case, I concur in the reversal of the judgment and the rendition of the cause.

. It is generally accepted throughout the nation that an unreported case has neither binding nor persuasive effect and that any citation of such decisions should be precluded. See R. Leñar, Appellate Judicial Opinions, 309, 313 (West Publishing Co., 1974), and page 319 where the reasons are set out.