General Motors Corp. v. Saenz on Behalf of Saenz
| Citation | 873 S.W.2d 353 |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. D-2578,D-2578 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,719 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Maria G. SAENZ, on Behalf of her Minor Children, Ricardo SAENZ, Jr. and Isaiah Saenz, and on behalf of the Estate of Ricardo Saenz, Sr.; Gloria Ramirez, Individually and on behalf of her Minor Children, Jackie Lee Ramirez, Josue Ramirez, Jr., and Jose Angel Ramirez, and on behalf of the Estate of Josue Ramirez, Sr.; Belia Saenz; Jose Ramirez, Sr. and Maximina Ramirez, Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Rehearing Overruled May 11, 1994.
Royal H. Brin, Jr., Dallas, David M. Heilbron, Leslie G. Landau, San Francisco, CA, Charles W. Hury, McAllen, for petitioner.
Ramon Garcia, Edinburg, Phil Harris, Weslaco, Victor M. Carrera, McAllen, Thomas O. Matlock, Jr., Mission, Robert L. Guerra, McAllen, Horacio Pena, Mission, Felipe Garcia, Jr., Edinburg, Robert B. Luther, Max J. Luther, III, P.C. & Associates, Austin, for respondents.
The principal issue we address is whether a manufacturer's failure to give adequate instructions for the safe use of its product can be the cause of an injury which would not have occurred if the instructions the manufacturer did give had not been ignored. The trial court rendered judgment against the manufacturer in this case, and a divided court of appeals affirmed. 829 S.W.2d 230. We reverse.
Ricardo Saenz was driving his employer's water tank truck down the highway when a rear tire blew out, causing him to lose control of the vehicle, which overturned, killing Saenz and his passenger, co-worker Josue Ramirez. Decedents' beneficiaries, plaintiffs in this case, contend that the accident occurred because the truck was overloaded, due to the failure of the manufacturers to provide adequate warnings against overloading.
The water tank truck was built in two stages. The bare truck--the cab and chassis, without the water tank--was a Model C-50 Chevrolet manufactured by General Motors Corporation in 1972. The Model C-50 was designed and built so that it could be modified for a wide variety of uses. The original owner installed a winch on the vehicle and used it as a tow truck. Fifteen years later the bare truck (without the winch) was sold to Sascon, Inc., a paving and utility contractor. Sascon added a 2,000-gallon water tank to the truck so that it could be used to haul water around construction sites. A few weeks later Sascon sold the water tank truck to Cantu Lease, Inc., a construction company and decedents' employer.
When the water tank was full, the truck greatly exceeded its gross vehicle weight rating, or GVWR--the maximum safe weight for the entire vehicle, bare truck, added equipment, load, passengers and all. The truck's GVWR was imprinted on a metal plate which GM had attached to the doorjamb, in conformity with federal regulations, on the driver's side at eye level. See generally 49 C.F.R. §§ 567.4(c) and 567.5 (1972, 1991) (placement of label); cf. §§ 568.4-568.7(a) (1972, 1991). The plate stated that overloading could void the warranty and referenced the owner's manual for additional information. Page two of the owner's manual was captioned, in large block letters, "IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON VEHICLE LOADING". The text stated, in part: "OVERLOADING SAFETY CAUTION: ... Overloading can create serious potential safety hazards and can also shorten the service life of your vehicle." (The full text of the doorplate and related portion of the owner's manual are set out in the court of appeals' opinion, 829 S.W.2d at 239-240.)
The doorplate was still fixed in its place and the owner's manual was in the glove compartment when Sascon purchased the bare truck. Although the owner of Sascon testified that he would not have had so large a tank installed on the truck if he had known that it would hold more water than the truck could safely carry, he also testified that no one at Sascon ever checked either the doorplate or the owner's manual to ascertain the vehicle's GVWR. Sascon was not concerned about the weight and stability of the loaded truck because it did not intend for the truck to be operated with a full load except in very limited circumstances. Sascon's practice was to not fill the tank until the truck arrived at a construction site, and then to drive it around the site at no more than 3-5 miles per hour to dispense the water. Usually, most of the water was discharged within a short time and distance after the tank was filled. Sascon's president testified that this was the standard way contractors used water trucks because of safety considerations, and that he assumed Cantu, also a contractor, would use the truck the same way. Accordingly, when Sascon sold the tank truck it did not warn Cantu against overloading.
The doorplate and owner's manual remained in place when Cantu purchased the truck. One of Cantu's owners noticed that when the truck was driven with a full tank on a bumpy road, it was so heavy that the fenders hit the tires. To try to correct this problem, a Cantu employee welded spacers to the truck's frame. However, no one at Cantu attempted to determine whether the load on the truck when the tank was full was too heavy. The day of the accident, Saenz and Ramirez were directed to drive the truck to a job site more than 100 miles away. Saenz drove, although he had no license, and Ramirez rode in the passenger seat. The accident occurred while the truck was traveling at highway speeds.
Plaintiffs sued GM and five other defendants 1 for the wrongful death of Saenz and Ramirez. Plaintiffs claimed damages for themselves and decedents' estates, based upon allegations of negligence and strict liability. Plaintiffs settled with three of the six defendants before trial and with Sascon during trial, receiving a total of $1,605,000. 2 At the time the case was submitted to the jury GM was the only remaining defendant. The jury found that the accident was caused by GM's inadequate warnings and instructions for the safe use of the truck, and by Sascon's defective design and construction of the completed water tank truck, as well as its inadequate warnings and instructions for the safe use of the truck. The jury apportioned responsibility for the accident, 70% to GM, and 30% to Sascon, and found plaintiffs' damages to be $3,115,000. The jury also found that GM was grossly negligent and assessed punitive damages of $2,500,000. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict against GM for 70% of plaintiffs' actual damages and all punitive damages, ad litem fees, court costs and interest, the total exceeding $4.8 million.
A divided court of appeals affirmed. The court concluded that GM had a duty to warn of the dangers of overloading its vehicles because it knew of those dangers and could foresee that they would arise in the use of the Model C-50. The court reasoned that Sascon's modification of the truck did not vitiate GM's duty because not only could GM have expected that the Model C-50 would be modified for various uses, it designed the truck for just that purpose. By referring in the doorplate and owner's manual to the dangers of overloading, GM acknowledged its duty to warn all users of those dangers, the court observed, but those warnings were inadequate in four respects: (1) GM provided no information concerning "the truck's maximum safe center of gravity for a particular load", (2) the doorplate "did not clearly state how much payload the truck could carry", (3) the risk of rolling the truck was not specifically disclosed, and (4) cautionary language was not set apart from "boilerplate." 829 S.W.2d at 240. The court stated that there is a presumption that an adequate warning would have been heeded, and that GM failed to rebut this presumption, even though the evidence establishes that Sascon and Cantu paid no attention to the doorplate or owner's manual. Accordingly, the court concluded that GM's failure to give an adequate warning caused the accident.
Chief Justice Nye dissented. He agreed that GM had a duty to warn against overloading but concluded that the doorplate and owner's manual were adequate. In his view, the court wrongly required GM "to provide additional or specialized warning" about the use of the vehicle as a water tank truck. 829 S.W.2d at 247. While GM anticipated the truck would be modified, it could not have foreseen, the dissent argued, all possible dangers that might arise "because of some unique characteristic resulting from subsequent modifications". Id. Moreover, the dissent reasoned, even if GM's warnings were inadequate, the failure to give different warnings could not have caused the accident when no one paid any attention to the warnings that GM gave.
We first consider whether the court of appeals correctly held that GM violated a duty to warn against overloading its truck. The existence of a duty to warn of dangers or instruct on proper use is a question of law. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. McGuire, 814 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex.1991). Generally, a manufacturer has a duty to warn if it "knows or should know of potential harm to a user because of the nature of its product." Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzalez, 561 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.1978). The determination of whether a duty to warn exists is made as of the time the product leaves the manufacturer. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A (1965).
GM does not dispute that it had a duty to warn all users of its truck against overloading but argues that its doorplate and owner's manual satisfied that duty. GM contends, along with the dissent below, that the court of appeals imposed upon it the additional duty of warning against the dangers of overloading with respect to particular uses of the truck. Specifically, GM argues that the court of appeals held that it was required not only to state the truck GVW but to warn against filling up a water tank that was too big for the truck...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowson v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.
...the warnings given, there was no reason to assume that they would have read a more prominently displayed warning. General Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 361 (Tex.1993).15 Thus, under Texas law, although failure to read warnings is not a bar to a cause of action for failure to give a......
-
Karst v. Shur-Company
...adequate warnings would have made a difference in the outcome, that is, that they would have been followed." Gen. Motors Corp. v. Saenz ex rel. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 357 (Tex.1993); see also Payne v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 767 F.3d 526, 531–32 (6th Cir.2014)("The key inquiry is whether, 'h......
-
Humble Sand & Gravel v. Gomez, 06-00-00017-CV
...at 935-36. Producing cause requires a lower burden than proximate cause, because foreseeability is not required. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 357 (Tex. 1993); Odell, 948 S.W.2d at 936. Both proximate cause and producing cause require causation in fact. Odell, 948 S.W.2d at 93......
-
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith
...is aided by a rebuttable presumption that a warning would have been heeded if it had been given. See, e.g., Gen. Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 357-59 (Tex.1993); Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Fontenot, 151 S.W.3d 753, 765 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2004, pet. denied); see also Barron v. Tex. D......
-
Undue Influence, Detecting Elder Abuse, and the Duty to Report Financial Exploitation
...Am. Builders, Inc. v. All Am. Siding, Inc., 991 S.W.2d 484, 489 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) (citing Gen. Motors Cor p. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 359 (Tex. 1993)). There is authority that the presumption of unfairness is not a super presumption; but just a normal presumption. Fieldi......
-
CHAPTER 10.I. Motion Authorities
...investigation or prosecution. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 829 S.W.2d 230, 242 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 873 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. 1993) (harmless error where settlement evidence should have been admissible for impeachment purposes). McAllen Kentucky Fried Chicken N......