Texas PJC Malpractice 2022

PJC 71.3

P RODUCTS L IABILITY —T HEORIES OF R ECOVERY

met his burden by evidence and jury findings that defect existed when grinder left Allied’s possession and that defects were producing cause of occurrence); Otis Eleva tor Co. v. Bedre , 758 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1988), rev’d on other grounds , 776 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. 1989) (plaintiff must establish that product was in defective condition at time the product left the hands of the manufacturer or the partic ular seller) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. g (1965)); AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Moran , 231 S.W.3d 16, 21 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2007) (en banc) (op. on reh’g), pet. granted, judgm’t vacated w.r.m. sub nom. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Moran , No. 07-0533 (Tex. May 2, 2008), available at https:// search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=07-0533&coa=cossup (plaintiff must establish that product was in defective condition when it left the hands of the particular seller); see also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §2 cmt. C (1998) (in manu facturing defect case against manufacturer, plaintiff must establish that defect existed in the product when it left the hands of the manufacturer). A manufacturing defect requires proof that the product deviated in its construction or quality from the specifi cations or planned output in a manner that renders it unreasonably dangerous. See Ledesma , 242 S.W.3d at 41–42.

226