Articles Posted in Defective Products

Texans who have been injured or have a wrongful death claim for the loss of a loved one arising out of a defective product should be aware of the Texas products liability statute of repose. Section 16.012 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that a products liability action must be brought within 15 years from the date of the original sale by the defendant.

It is important to note that the event which starts the 15 year clock ticking is the sale by the defendant. The primary defendant in a Texas products liability action is usually the manufacturer. Keep in mind that the purchase by a consumer may take place a considerable time after the statute of repose starts to run. For example, consider the situation in which a truck is manufactured in 1993, sold to a dealer in January of 1994, sold to a consumer in January of 1995, and driven for 15 years by the original consumer who rolls the truck over in January of 2010 and is killed when the roof pillars allow the roof to crush. Because the applicable statute of repose runs from the date of the sale by the defendant (January of 1994), the Texas statute of repose on the wrongful death case against the manufacturer starts to run in January of 1994 and expires in January of 2009. While the roof crush case and the resulting wrongful death claim would normally be subject to a two-year statute of limitations from the date of the accident the claim would be barred by the applicable statute of repose before the cause of action accrued.

In this scenario there is nothing the wrongful death claimants could have done to avoid the statute of repose. However, being aware of the statute of repose becomes critical in situations where the statute of repose expires during the applicable statute of limitations. Using the above scenario assume that the truck was originally sold by the manufacturer to the dealer in January of 1996. Under this scenario, the two-year statute of limitations on the wrongful death and survivor claims arising out of the roof crush case which occurred in January of 2010 would not expire until January of 2012. However, the statute of repose would bar the claims when it expired in January of 2011, one full year before the 2 year statute of limitations expired.

Everybody has heard the media version of the McDonalds hot coffee case but nobody seems to have heard the truth. What the media never mentions are the facts that led a jury of conservative people to the conclusion that McDonalds not only caused Stella Liebeck’s injuries but also desperately needed to be punished. The pertinent, and usually ignored, facts are that McDonalds maintains their coffee at 180 degrees which is about the temperature of the radiator on an automobile on a hot summer day. Hot coffee at 180 degrees will cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds. Sure, poor Stella Liebeck spilled her coffee in her lap and that’s her fault. Her punishment should have been stained sweat pants. However, what she received was almost unimaginable. She received third degree burns to her thighs and genitals. Her burns were so severe that she was hospitalized in a burn ward where her wounds were debrided. Burns are debrided by taking a tool somewhat akin to a cheese grater and scraping away the dead flesh until you hit tissue that bleeds. Over the next year Liebeck underwent plastic surgery and skin grafts on her legs and genitals. Still, all Liebeck wanted was $20,000 to help pay for her medical bills. McDonalds told her to get lost.

McDonalds claimed to be unaware of the danger presented by radiator hot coffee and swore that they had never had another complaint or injury as a result of the temperature of their coffee. Liebeck’s counsel ultimately was able to document that McDonalds had received over 700 complaints of injuries caused by the temperature of their coffee, including several as serious as Liebeck’s, but had chosen to ignore the complaints because of the profitability of their coffee. The jury awarded Liebeck only $160,000 in actual damages, a rather modest sum considering the severe nature of her injuries. The same jury was so offended by McDonalds’ corporate lack of concern for their customers’ injuries and their calculated dishonesty that they assessed $2,700,000 in punitive damages against McDonald. The judge reduced the award to $640,000 almost immediately and the matter was settled while on appeal for considerably less than the amount awarded by the judge.

If the true facts of this case still sound frivolous to you then maybe you should drain your radiator onto your lap and rethink the issue.

Contact Information