Texas PJC Malpractice 2022

PJC 71.9

P RODUCTS L IABILITY —T HEORIES OF R ECOVERY

tions that call for the same factual finding.” Hyundai , 995 S.W.2d at 665–66 (affirming refusal in crashworthiness case to submit question on breach of implied warranty in addition to strict products liability question). Because of the overlapping elements of proof, there is a risk of conflicting answers that will necessitate a new trial. See Ford Motor Co. v. Miles , 141 S.W.3d 309, 315–19 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied); Otis Spunkmeyer, Inc. v. Blakely , 30 S.W.3d 678, 690 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.); see also Hanus v. Texas Utilities Co. , 71 S.W.3d 874, 881 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) (“Commentators and other courts have also recognized that the duty-to-warn analyses of marketing defect and negligence claims are so similar as to be duplicative.”).

244