Court Opinion

ID: 9669230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:45:00.08513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:54.149219
License: Public Domain

ENOCH, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
The Court misconstrues the Barajases’ allegations. There is no dispute between the parties that Firestone did not design, manufacture, or sell the particular wheel that killed Jimmy Barajas. Nor is there any dispute that Firestone did design the 15-degree bead seat taper with low flange height. The fact that Firestone did not design, manufacture, or sell the particular wheel at issue in this case is not dispositive of all the Barajases’ claims. The Barajases specifically allege that Firestone’s original design for the 15-degree bead seat taper with low flange height is the design feature of the wheel that permits the mismatch between tire and wheel that occurred in this case and that caused the tire to explode. The issue, then, is not whether Firestone designed, manufactured, or sold the particular wheel in this case, but whether Firestone, solely as a designer of a component part of a product that causes injury, can be liable in strict products liability or negligence for its design.
I
I agree with the Court that Firestone is not liable in strict products liability. Strict liability rests on the defendant placing into the stream of commerce a defective product. Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Urquidez, 570 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Tex.1978). Firestone did not place any product into the stream of commerce. Rather, by granting a royalty-free license, Firestone only placed its design in the stream of commerce.
I note that a non-manufacturer may, under certain circumstances, be liable in the same manner as a manufacturer or seller of a defective product. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 400 (1965) (Selling as Own Product Chattel Made by Another). For example, a trademark licensor may be liable as an apparent manufacturer when the li-censor is significantly involved in the manufacturing, marketing, or distribution of the defective product. See Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 163 Ariz. 88, 786 P.2d 939, 945 (1990) (trademark licensor that significantly participates in the overall process by which the product reaches consumers, and who has the right to control the incidents of manufacture or distribution is liable under section 402A of the Restatement (Second)); Burkert v. Petrol Plus, 216 Conn. 65, 579 A.2d 26, 35 (1990) (trademark licensor, absent any involvement in the production, marketing, or distribution of defective product, is not liable in strict tort liability or negligence); Connelly v. Uniroyal, Inc., 75 Ill.2d 393, 27 Ill.Dec. 343, 351, 389 N.E.2d 155, 163 *618(1979) (trademark licensor liable in strict liability as integral part of the marketing enterprise and participation in the profits reaped by placing a defective product in the stream of commerce); Stanford v. Dairy Queen Prods., 623 S.W.2d 797, 806 (Tex.App.-Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (trademark licensor that only authorized use of trade name was not an “actual vendor” of the defective product under section 400 of the Restatement (Second)); see also Rockwell, Annotation, Trademark Licensor’s Liability for Injury or Death Allegedly Due to Defect in Licensed Product, 90 A.L.R. 4th 981 (1990); Keeton ET AL., PROSSER & KEETON ON THE LAW OF Torts § 100 (6th ed.1984) (strict liability may extend to licensor who participates in the construction and sale of products made pursuant to a patent). But a mere designer of a defective product is not hable in strict liability because the apparent manufacturer doctrine does not apply when the party is not involved in the manufacture, sale, or installation of the product. Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. Trane Co., 831 F.2d 153, 155-56 (7th Cir.1987).
As Firestone is not a manufacturer, seller, or apparent manufacturer of the wheel causing Jimmy Barajas’s death, Firestone is not liable in strict products liability for the Bara-jases’ damages. I concur with the Court’s judgment reversing and rendering judgment for Firestone on the Barajases’ strict products liability claims.
II
I do not agree, however, with the Court’s treatment of the Barajases’ negligence claims. Unlike strict products liability, liability in negligence is not premised on placing a defective product into the stream of commerce. The Court in Alm v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 717 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tex.1986), held that a designer who was not a manufacturer or seller of the product causing the injury had a duty to exercise ordinary care in its design and a duty to warn users of hazards associated with the use of the designed product.
In Aim, the plaintiff sued the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) for injuries he sustained when a bottle cap exploded off a soda bottle he had purchased at a grocery store. Alcoa designed the bottle cap but did not manufacture or sell the bottle cap or the bottle. Alcoa did design, manufacture, and sell a bottle capping machine, and designed and marketed a process for capping bottles. The Court expressly defined the issue in terms of the duty owed by a “designer who is not a manufacturer.” Alm, 717 S.W.2d at 590. The Court first recognized that a designer who is not also the manufacturer should share the same duty to develop a safe design. Id. at 591. It makes little sense to hold liable a manufacturer who purchased or obtained by license someone else’s design, but not the party ultimately responsible for the design. A negligent design claim should not fail simply because the design is divorced from the manufacture of the product. Moreover, while a manufacturer may have independent liability for failing to test a product design, it should have a right of indemnity against a designer who licensed or sold a negligent design to the manufacturer.
The Court misconstrues the Barajases’ allegations to avoid Aim. The Court concludes that because Firestone did not design, manufacture, or sell the wheel in question, Firestone owed no duty. 927 S.W.2d at 613. Contrary to the Court’s framing of the issue, the Barajases allege that Firestone designed the feature of the Kelsey-Hayes wheel that caused the injury — the 15-degree bead seat taper with low flange height. The fact that Firestone did not design, manufacture, or sell the particular wheel at issue in this case is irrelevant for a negligent design claim. Firestone designed the feature of the wheel alleged to be defective and alleged to have caused Jimmy Barajas’s death. Firestone had a duty to exercise ordinary care in its design of the 15-degree bead seat taper. Alm, 717 S.W.2d at 591.
Moreover, the Court’s attempt to distinguish Aim on its facts is unpersuasive. The sole basis for imposing any design-related duties on Alcoa was as a non-manufacturing designer of the bottle capping process that caused the plaintiff’s injury. Firestone, as the designer of the feature of the wheel alleged to have caused the tire explosion, is no different than Alcoa. Nothing in Aim *619suggests that the design-related duties derived from the fact that Alcoa did more than design the bottle capping process.
The fact that Firestone has a duty of ordinary care in its design is not dispositive of liability. Unlike strict products liability, in which a plaintiff need only prove the design was defective without regard to the designer’s negligence, the Barajases must prove Firestone was negligent in developing its design. Further, in this case there is evidence that Firestone’s design was modified by Kelsey-Hayes. Accordingly, the Barajases would face difficult burdens of proof on both breach of duty and causation.
But Firestone sought summary judgment asserting only that because it did not design, manufacture, or sell the particular wheel involved in this case, it owed no duty to Jimmy Barajas. Aim recognized a duty of non-manufacturing designers to exercise ordinary care in the design of a product. This duty is not dependent on whether Firestone placed the injury-causing product into the stream of commerce, but rather derives from Firestone’s actions as designer. The duty should be the same whether the designer designed the entire product or a component part alleged to have been the cause of injury. Because Firestone designed the feature of the wheel alleged to have caused the tire explosion — the 15-degree bead seat taper with low flange height — Firestone owed a duty of ordinary care in its design.
The fact that Firestone’s design has become an industry standard does not militate against a duty. Liability should not be more limited the more widely adopted a design is by an industry. To the contrary, a designer who offers up its design for a product through a royalty-free license in the hopes of gaining widespread adoption of the design in the industry militates in favor of a duty.
Aim also recognizes a designer’s duty to warn of hazards associated with the design. The Court stated:
There is no reason to distinguish a designer, who has intimate knowledge of a designed product, from a retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer. Alcoa designed the closure system. It is the failure of that system which caused [the plaintiffs] injury. There can be no justification for requiring a user of Alcoa’s closure technology to warn of its hazards while not holding Alcoa to the same duty.
Alm, 717 S.W.2d at 591. The Barajases allege a negligent failure to warn claim. Under Aim, as a non-manufacturing designer, Firestone has a duty to warn of the hazards associated with its design of the 15-degree bead seat taper if a reasonably prudent person in the same position would have warned of the hazards. Id. The Court incorrectly resolves the failure to warn issue by concluding that one manufacturer has no duty to warn or instruct about another manufacturer’s product. Firestone’s role in this case is not as a manufacturer, but as a designer. Aim plainly recognizes a designer’s duty to warn of hazards of its design.
⅜ # ⅜ ‡ ⅜ ‡
In sum, the Court correctly concludes that Firestone is not liable in strict products liability because the summary judgment evidence establishes that Firestone did not design, manufacture, or sell the particular wheel involved in this case. That summary judgment evidence, however, does not entitle Firestone to summary judgment on the Ba-rajases’ negligence claims because those claims are not dependent on having placed the particular product at issue in the stream of commerce. A designer’s duty of ordinary care and duty to warn derive from the conduct in designing a product; that duty should not vanish simply because the design is developed by someone other than the manufacturer.
Like the designer in Aim, Firestone designed the feature of the product alleged to have caused Jimmy Barajas’s death. The Court misconstrues the Barajases’ allegations and, in so doing, provides a false basis for distinguishing Aim. Firestone owed a designer’s duty of ordinary care and duty to warn. It was not entitled to summary judgment on the Barajases’ negligence claims. For these reasons, I concur in that part of the Court’s judgment reversing the court of appeals’ judgment and rendering judgment for Firestone on the Barajases’ strict liability claims. I dissent from the Court’s judgment *620reversing and rendering on the Barajases’ negligence claims. I would affirm the reversal of summary judgment on the Barajases’ negligence claims and remand those claims to the trial court.