Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.004 – Inherently Unsafe Products

CPRC § 82.004 Summary

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.004 establishes a specific defense for manufacturers and sellers in products liability lawsuits concerning certain items. This particular statute states that a manufacturer or seller generally cannot be held liable if the product is inherently unsafe, and this inherent unsafeness is a matter of common knowledge to the typical consumer within the community. Additionally, the product must be a common consumer item meant for personal use. The law provides examples, drawing from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, such as sugar, alcohol, tobacco, butter, castor oil, and explicitly adds oysters to this list. It is crucial to note that this defense does not apply if the claim is based on a manufacturing defect (meaning the product was flawed during production) or a breach of an express warranty (a specific guarantee made by the seller or manufacturer).

CPRC § 82.004 Purpose

The legislative intent behind this section of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code is to provide a sensible limitation on products liability claims, particularly for everyday items that carry widely understood and accepted risks. This statute exists to prevent manufacturers and sellers from being held liable for dangers that are inherent to a product’s nature and are commonly known by the consuming public. The problem it addresses is the potential for frivolous lawsuits against producers of items like sugar or alcohol, where the potential for harm from excessive or misuse is not a hidden defect but rather a universally recognized characteristic. By clarifying that liability doesn’t extend to these known, inherent risks, the law aims to balance consumer protection with practical expectations of consumer knowledge and producer responsibility, ensuring that manufacturers are not indefinitely accountable for risks beyond their control or reasonable expectation.

CPRC § 82.004 Real-World Example

Consider a hypothetical scenario involving the statute regarding inherently unsafe products. A consumer frequently eats raw oysters at various restaurants. One day, after consuming oysters, they contract a bacterial infection, leading to severe illness. The consumer decides to sue the oyster supplier, alleging that the oysters were “unsafe” and caused their illness.

Under CPRC § 82.004, the oyster supplier could invoke a defense against this products liability claim. They would argue that oysters are specifically listed in the statute as an “inherently unsafe product.” Furthermore, they would assert that the potential for bacterial contamination (like Vibrio vulnificus) or other risks associated with consuming raw shellfish is “known to be unsafe by the ordinary consumer who consumes the product with the ordinary knowledge common to the community.” Provided the consumer’s illness was due to the inherent, known risks of consuming raw oysters and not, for example, a manufacturing defect where the oysters were intentionally adulterated or a breach of an express warranty that the oysters were “guaranteed pathogen-free,” the supplier would likely be shielded from liability under this statute.

CPRC § 82.004 Related Statutes

This particular section on inherently unsafe products is part of a broader framework of products liability law in Texas. Several other statutes within the Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 82 are often referenced or are foundational to understanding this defense:

• CPRC § 82.001 – Definitions: This section provides crucial definitions for terms like “products liability action,” “manufacturer,” “seller,” and “product,” which are essential for determining the scope and applicability of § 82.004.
• CPRC § 82.002 – Liability of Sellers: This section generally addresses the liability of sellers who are not manufacturers, providing an indemnity claim against the manufacturer in certain circumstances. While § 82.004 offers a direct defense, § 82.002 outlines a seller’s recourse if they are sued.
• CPRC § 82.003 – Design Defect Defense: This statute provides a defense in design defect cases if the product could not be made safer without impairing its usefulness. While distinct from inherent unsafeness, both statutes deal with limitations on liability based on the nature of the product.

CPRC § 82.004 Case Law Interpreting Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.004

Several court cases in Texas have addressed the principles underlying or directly applying Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.004, particularly concerning the “common knowledge” defense and the nature of “inherently unsafe” products.

One significant case that discusses the common knowledge defense, which forms the basis for this statute, is American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell. While the case largely addresses common law principles, the Texas Supreme Court in *Grinnell* recognized the legislature’s intent in enacting § 82.004 as consistent with the common law’s “common knowledge” defense, particularly in the context of tobacco products. The court discussed the standard for what constitutes “common knowledge” within the community regarding a product’s risks.

Another relevant case is Sanchez v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., which, while dealing with prescription drugs (often considered under a different “unavoidably unsafe” doctrine), touches upon the interpretation of “inherently unsafe” and “common knowledge.” The court in *Sanchez* discussed the distinction between products like those listed in § 82.004 and other products, emphasizing that the statute applies to items whose dangers are generally recognized by ordinary consumers.

CPRC § 82.004 Why Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.004 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.004 is a critical statute in personal injury litigation, profoundly impacting both plaintiff and defense strategies in products liability cases. For plaintiffs, this law means that pursuing a claim for injuries caused by a product like sugar, alcohol, or oysters based purely on its inherent, commonly known risks will likely be unsuccessful. Instead, plaintiffs must focus their efforts on proving a *manufacturing defect* (the specific product was flawed, making it more dangerous than intended) or a *breach of an express warranty* (the manufacturer or seller made a specific promise about the product’s safety or quality that was broken). This directs plaintiff attorneys to investigate specific defects or unmet guarantees, rather than the general nature of the product.

For manufacturers and sellers, this statute provides a powerful and often absolute defense against certain products liability claims. It offers legal protection for common consumer products that, by their very nature, carry risks that are widely understood by the public. Defense attorneys can use § 82.004 to argue that a claim should be dismissed if the injury resulted from a commonly known, inherent danger of the product, thereby shielding their clients from liability for what might otherwise be considered a product defect. This protection is vital for industries dealing in food, beverages, and other items explicitly or implicitly covered by the statute, preventing what could otherwise be an overwhelming burden of litigation for risks consumers are expected to understand. The law thus highlights a fundamental balance in tort law: holding producers accountable for defects they can control, while not punishing them for risks that are part of a product’s inherent and commonly accepted nature.