Texas PJC Malpractice 2022

PJC 71.6

P RODUCTS L IABILITY —T HEORIES OF R ECOVERY

PJC 71.6

Misrepresentation

QUESTION ______ Was there a misrepresentation by ABC Company that was a producing cause of the [ injury ] [ occurrence ] in question? There was a misrepresentation if— 1. ABC Company represented to the public that the Panther automo bile possessed the most stable suspension system on the market ; and 2. the automobile in question failed to possess the most stable suspen sion system on the market ; and 3. the representation about the stability of the suspension system involved a material fact concerning the character or quality of the automo bile in question; and 4. Paul Payne justifiably relied on the representation made by ABC Company in purchasing the automobile in question. A “material fact” is a fact that is important to a normal purchaser by which the purchaser may justifiably be expected to be influenced in making the deci sion to buy the product. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 71.6 should be used if the plaintiff seeks recovery for personal injuries resulting from misrepresentations made by the seller. See Crocker v. Winthrop Laboratories , 514 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1974) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402B); Nugent v. Utica Cutlery Co. , 636 S.W.2d 805, 808–09 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982, writ dism’d) (setting out elements of 402B claim and emphasizing need for a question that asks of justifiable reliance); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales , 548 S.W.2d 416 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1976), rev’d on other grounds , 561 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. 1978); Ford Motor Co. v. Russell & Smith Ford Co. , 474 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1971, no writ); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod ucts Liability § 9 (1998). Use of “injury” or “occurrence.” See PJC 71.1.

234