Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. McGuire, C-9983

Citation814 S.W.2d 385
Decision Date01 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. C-9983,C-9983
PartiesProd.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,785 JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. et al., Petitioners, v. Ronald Wayne McGUIRE et al., Respondents.
CourtSupreme Court of Texas
OPINION

HIGHTOWER, Justice.

In these consolidated actions, we consider whether manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages have a duty to warn of the danger of developing the disease of alcoholism from prolonged and excessive consumption of their products. The trial court determined that no duty existed and dismissed the actions. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. 790 S.W.2d 842, 850 (1990). We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment that plaintiffs take nothing.

I.

Three separate lawsuits in Jefferson County were consolidated for appeal. The plaintiffs are Ronald Wayne McGuire, John W. Benoit, individually and as representative of the Estate of Eva Mae Benoit, Willie J. Benoit, Roy A. Benoit and Judy M. Galley, and David E. Freeman and Inez Freeman. At the time of suit, Ronald Wayne McGuire was approximately 43 years of age. During the course of his adult life, he consumed alcohol products--specifically Seagram 7. Eva Mae Benoit was 62 years of age at the time of her death. During the course of her adult life, she consumed alcohol products--specifically Seagram 7, Crown Royal, Hiram Walker, Private Cellar and Canadian Mist. At the time of suit, David E. Freeman was approximately 61 years of age. During the course of his adult life, he consumed alcohol products--specifically Canadian Club Whiskey and Calvert Whiskey. Defendants Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., Hiram Walker Incorporated, Private Cellar Company, d/b/a Medley Distilling Company, Brown-Forman Corp., d/b/a B-F Spirits LTD., Tarrant Distributors, Inc., Lone Star Company and Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Inc. are manufacturers and wholesale distributors of alcoholic beverages and the manufacturers' trade association. 1 Plaintiffs, who suffer or suffered from the disease of alcoholism, 2 brought suit against Seagram alleging a duty to warn and instruct them of the danger of developing alcoholism from prolonged and excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages. Seagram filed special exceptions to plaintiffs' pleadings asserting, among other things, a failure to state any actionable claims and the absence of any duty to warn consumers of the danger of developing alcoholism because it is commonly known. After affording plaintiffs several opportunities to amend their pleadings, the trial court sustained the special exceptions and dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

II.

In determining whether plaintiffs' pleadings state a cause of action, we must assume that all of the alleged material facts are true. Wheeler v. White, 398 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tex.1966). Plaintiffs' lengthy pleadings consist largely of an encyclopedic condemnation of the use of alcohol and its effects. However, the gravamen of their complaint is that they are alcoholics. They allege that they have suffered certain unspecified illnesses, bodily injuries, financial ruin, mental anguish and loss of consortium from their prolonged consumption and resulting addiction to alcoholic beverages during the course of their adult lives. They further allege that while they were drinking alcoholic beverages, Seagram was advertising and promoting the products to increase consumption, to maintain regular customers, to attract new markets and to suppress vital information. At the time suit was filed, Seagram had totally failed to warn consumers (including plaintiffs) of the danger of developing alcoholism related to the prolonged and excessive consumption of their products. 3 Plaintiffs allege that they were unaware of the signs and symptoms of alcoholic addiction and that they relied upon the public advertisements in newspapers, magazines, and on billboards placed by Seagram. These pictorials and writings created the false illusion and false belief that drinking was safe. They further allege that if Seagram had warned plaintiffs or their families and friends that alcohol was an addictive drug and warned them of the signs and symptoms of alcoholism, they would have recognized the addiction and sought medical and psychological help.

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action against Seagram for products liability and misrepresentation under sections 402A and 402B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, negligence, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, violations of the DTPA and conspiracy. The essence of these causes of action is Seagram's alleged duty to warn or instruct of the danger of developing the disease of alcoholism from prolonged and excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages.

III.

In Texas, the existence of a duty to warn of the dangers or instruct as to the proper use of a product is a question of law. See Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 732 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.). "A product may be proven to be defective if ... it is unreasonably dangerous because adequate warnings or instructions are not provided." Lucas v. Texas Industries, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 372, 377 (Tex.1984). See also Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales, 561 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.1978). Even a product which is safely designed and manufactured may be unreasonably dangerous as marketed because of a lack of adequate warnings or instructions. Lucas v. Texas Industries, Inc., 696 S.W.2d at 377.

Seagram concedes that there are health dangers in drinking too much and too long and, for some people, in drinking at all. However, Seagram nonetheless argues that, as a matter of law, it had no duty to warn or instruct regarding characteristics of its products under any and all circumstances. Seagram's argument is premised upon comments to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, principally comment j, which excuses a seller from the duty to warn as to dangers that are "generally known and recognized." 4 These comments appropriately identify alcoholic beverages as an example of a product some of whose dangers may be apparent to the public. Under the Restatement, one selling alcoholic beverages is not, however, excused from warning of all product dangers, but only those of which the public has "common knowledge". See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comments i, j (1965). The existence of a duty to warn or instruct in this cause is thus determined by the extent to which the danger of developing the disease of alcoholism from prolonged and excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages is "common knowledge." 5 Encompassed within the term "common knowledge" are those facts that are so well known to the community as to be beyond dispute. 6

Texas courts have recognized that there is common knowledge among the public of a most obvious danger of alcohol consumption--that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • HNMC, Inc. v. Chan
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 30, 2021
    ..." ‘within the ordinary knowledge common to the community.’ " Hirabayashi , 977 S.W.2d at 707 (quoting Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. McGuire , 814 S.W.2d 385, 388 (Tex. 1991) ); see also Duran , 2000 WL 768640, at *5. As that principle is applied to the present circumstances, I can safel......
  • HNMC, Inc. v. Chan
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 30, 2021
    ...... Chan, Jonathan Chan, and Justin Chan-the husband and sons,. respectively, of Leny Rey Chan, deceased. [ 2 ] In ... negligence. One such witness was Joseph Blaschke, a. consulting engineer specializing in the ... (quoting Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. McGuire , 814 S.W.2d 385, 388 (Tex. ......
  • Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational Industries, Docket Nos. 85391
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 1, 1991
    ...risk of danger was open and obvious. Compare Brune v. Brown Forman Corp., 758 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.App., 1988), with Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. McGuire, 814 S.W.2d 385 (Tex., 1991). In addition, many of the cases cited by the dissent rely on a strict liability theory of recovery and do not invo......
  • Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • April 2, 2010
    ...(holding that product seller owes no duty to warn of commonly known risks of the product's use); Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. McGuire, 814 S.W.2d 385, 387-88 (Tex.1991) (holding there is no duty to warn of risks associated with prolonged and excessive alcohol consumption because such r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Renewed look at the duty to warn and affirmative defenses.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 61 No. 2, April 1994
    • April 1, 1994
    ...Liability 33 (Defense Research Institute 1989) [hereinafter Campbell & Edwards]. See, e.g., Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. McGuire, 814 S.W.2d 385, 387-88 (Tex. 1991). (51.) Burton v. L.O. Smith Foundry Prods. Co., 529 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1976). (52.) May v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 4......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT