Texas PJC Malpractice 2022

PJC 71.11

P RODUCTS L IABILITY —T HEORIES OF R ECOVERY

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.”).

250