Mooring v. Fram Corporation

• Decision Date: 20 October 1967
• Docket Number: No. 4108,4108
• Citation: Mooring v. Fram Corporation, 420 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. Ct. App. 1967)
• Parties: J. G. MOORING, Jr., Appellant, v. FRAM CORPORATION, Appellee. . Eastland
• Court: Texas Civil Court of Appeals

Page 462

420 S.W.2d 462

J. G. MOORING, Jr., Appellant, v.FRAM CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 4108.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Eastland.

Oct. 20, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1967.

Todd & Quinn, Nelson Quinn, Abilene, for appellant.

Mays, Leonard, Moore & Dickson, R. Temple Dickson, Sweetwater, for appellee.

COLLINGS, Justice.

J. G. Mooring, Jr. brought suit against Fram Corporation, seeking damages alleged to have resulted to the engine of a truck belonging to him, by reason of negligence, on the part of the defendant(1) in manufacturing and placing on the market an oil filter which had a defective return duct, (2) in failing to inspect and discover said defective return duct, and (3) in placing on the market an oil filter which was inherently dangerous and which would cause unreasonable risk and damage if placed in a motor vehicle for use.At the close of plaintiff's testimony the court withdrew the case from the jury and rendered judgment for the defendant.PlaintiffJ. G. Mooring, Jr. has appealed.

Appellant presents one point of error in which it is contended that there is ample evidence to raise a material question of fact and that the court erred in withdrawing the case from the jury and rendering judgment for the defendant.In our opinion the point is well taken.The pleadings and the evidence raise a fact question for the jury concerning negligence on the part of appellee in the manufacture of its oil filter proximately causing the damage to Mooring's truck.

It is well recognized that a manufacturer or processor is liable for the proximate results of its negligence in manufacturing or processing its product.Brown v. Howard, 285 S.W.2d 752, (Ct.Civil Apps. 1955, n.r.e.);Cruz v. Ansul Chemical Company, 399 S.W.2d 944--947, (Ct.Civil Apps. 1966, n.r.e.);Ford Motor Company v. Puskar, 394 S.W.2d page 1, (Ct.Civil Apps.1965), modified and affirmed bySupreme Court, 417 S.W.2d 262.In 65 C.J.S.Negligence§ 100(2), pages 1078, 1079 and 1080 the statement of the rule is, in effect, that a manufacturer of an article which is inherently or imminently dangerous, or becomes so when applied to its intended use in the usual and customary manner, is liable to one, who, without fault suffers damage to his person or property which is the natural and proximate result of negligence in the manufacture of the article, if the damage might have been reasonably anticipated.The rule is held to be applicable irrespective of privity or any contractual relationship between the parties.65 C.J.S.Negligence§ 100(3), pages 1106 and 1107.Also seeShamrock Fuel and Oil Sales Company v. Tunks, 406 S.W.2d 483, (Ct.Civ.Apps. 1966, no writ history);Cohn v. Saenz, 211 S.W. 492, (Ct.Civ.Apps.1919, writ ref.).The last cited Court of Civil Appealscases involved the placing on the market and sale of dangerous explosive substances.They held that privity of contract was not required in tort actions because the duty owed by one who places such a substance on the market extends not only to the immediate buyer, but, since the purchase is for resale, the duty is owed to all who thereafter have occasion to purchase the product and use it for its intended purpose.

The record in the instant case shows that appellant was the operator of commercial trucks in the Abilene area.He left one of his trucks at a Conoco Station in...