Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 – Design Defects

Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 Summary

This Texas statute outlines the specific requirements a person (the claimant) must meet to prove a design defect in a product liability lawsuit. For someone to successfully claim a product was defectively designed, they must demonstrate two things by a “preponderance of the evidence” (meaning it’s more likely than not): first, that a “safer alternative design” for the product existed; and second, that the product’s design defect was a direct cause of their injury, property damage, or a loved one’s death.

The statute further defines what constitutes a “safer alternative design.” It means a different design that, with reasonable certainty, would have prevented or significantly lessened the risk of harm, *without* significantly reducing the product’s usefulness. Crucially, this alternative design must also have been economically and technologically practical (feasible) at the time the product was sold or left the control of its maker or seller, based on available scientific knowledge. The law also specifies that it does not apply to certain types of cases, such as those involving environmental contamination, toxic torts, or issues with drugs and medical devices covered by federal law. It also clarifies that this statute is not intended to limit how Texas courts develop common law for products not covered by this section.

Purpose of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 – Design Defects

The legislative intent behind this statute was to standardize and clarify the burden of proof for design defect claims within Texas product liability law. Prior to its enactment, the legal standard for proving a design defect could vary, leading to inconsistencies and uncertainty in litigation. This provision addresses the need for a clear, objective framework that balances consumer protection with the economic realities faced by manufacturers and sellers. By requiring claimants to demonstrate a “safer alternative design” that was both feasible and would have prevented or reduced harm, the statute aims to prevent speculative or unsubstantiated claims. It ensures that product liability lawsuits alleging design flaws are grounded in practical and demonstrable alternatives, thereby streamlining litigation and promoting a more predictable legal environment for businesses while still offering recourse for consumers genuinely harmed by avoidable product defects. The statute also carves out specific exceptions for environmental and drug/device cases, recognizing that different legal frameworks or federal regulations may govern those areas.

Real-World Example of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 – Design Defects

Imagine a construction worker, Sarah, is severely injured when a safety harness she is wearing fails during a fall. Sarah’s attorney investigates the incident and finds that the harness, manufactured by “SecureGear Corp.,” had a buckle mechanism that could unintentionally disengage under certain common stresses, even when properly fastened.

To prove a design defect under Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005, Sarah’s legal team would need to:

1. Identify a Safer Alternative Design: They would present expert testimony and evidence showing that at the time SecureGear Corp. manufactured the harness, there was an alternative buckle design available. This alternative design, perhaps involving a double-locking mechanism or a different material, was known in the industry and could have been incorporated into the harness.
2. Prove Feasibility: They would demonstrate that this alternative buckle design was both “economically and technologically feasible.” This means it wouldn’t have made the harness prohibitively expensive or impossible to manufacture, and the technology for it existed or was reasonably achievable at the time SecureGear Corp. released its harness.
3. Show Utility Preservation: They would also confirm that implementing this safer design would not have significantly impaired the harness’s primary function – allowing a worker to move safely while remaining secured.
4. Establish Producing Cause: Finally, Sarah’s team would prove that the original, flawed buckle design was the direct cause of her injuries. Had the safer, alternative design been used, the buckle would not have disengaged, and her injuries would have been prevented or significantly reduced.

If Sarah can prove all these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, she may succeed in her product liability claim against SecureGear Corp. for a design defect.

Related Statutes

Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 is part of a broader framework governing products liability in Texas. Several other statutes within Chapter 82 and other chapters provide important context:

• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.001 – Definitions: This section defines key terms used throughout Chapter 82, such as “claimant,” “manufacturer,” “seller,” and “products liability action,” which are essential for understanding who is covered by § 82.005.
• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.006 – Presumption of No Defect: This statute establishes a presumption that a product is not defective if it complies with mandatory safety standards or specifications adopted by the federal government or an agency of the federal government, which can impact the claimant’s burden in a design defect case.
• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.007 – Inherent Risk: This section states that a manufacturer or seller is not liable for an inherent characteristic of a product that is an obvious danger or when the product is safe for its intended use and is incapable of being made safer. This can be a defense against certain design defect claims.
• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 33.013(c)(2) and (3) – Determination of Percentage of Responsibility: These sections define “toxic tort” and “environmental tort,” which are specifically excluded from the application of § 82.005 under subsection (d)(1). This indicates that different rules or burdens of proof apply to these specific types of claims.
• 21 U.S.C. Section 321 – Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Referenced in subsection (d)(2), this federal law defines “drug” and “device.” By excluding these from § 82.005, the Texas statute acknowledges that federal regulations often govern the liability for these products.

Case Law Interpreting Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 – Design Defects

Numerous Texas appellate and Supreme Court cases have interpreted and applied Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005, shaping its understanding in product liability litigation. Here are a few notable examples:

• Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez: This landmark 1998 Texas Supreme Court case significantly addressed the design defect standard, though it largely concerned the common law prior to the full effect of the statute. However, its discussion laid important groundwork for understanding the “safer alternative design” concept that § 82.005 codified.
• General Motors Corp. v. Sanchez: In this 1999 case, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that the claimant has the burden to prove a safer alternative design under § 82.005(a)(1) and (b), emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of feasibility and utility preservation.
• Hernandez v. Tokai Corp.: This 1999 Texas Supreme Court case further clarified the application of the safer alternative design requirement, reiterating that the burden of proof rests squarely on the claimant to demonstrate a feasible and practical alternative.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma: A 2007 Texas Supreme Court opinion that reinforced the strict requirements of § 82.005, particularly concerning the economic and technological feasibility of the proposed safer alternative design at the time of manufacture. The case underscored that the proposed design must not substantially impair the product’s utility.
• Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears: This 1999 Texas Court of Appeals case further elaborated on the “producing cause” element of § 82.005(a)(2), requiring a direct causal link between the alleged design defect and the injury sustained.

These cases illustrate the rigorous approach Texas courts take when evaluating design defect claims, consistently requiring claimants to present robust evidence meeting the specific criteria outlined in Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005.

Why Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 is a cornerstone of Texas product liability law, critically impacting personal injury litigation involving design defects. For injured individuals and their legal representation, this statute defines the primary battleground for their case. It mandates a rigorous evidentiary burden, requiring plaintiffs to not only identify a flaw in a product’s design but also to conceptualize and prove a “safer alternative design” that was both practical and available at the time of manufacture. This means mere allegations of a poor design are insufficient; claimants must present expert testimony, engineering evidence, and economic analyses to show how the product *could* have been made safer without sacrificing its core function or being cost-prohibitive.

For defense attorneys and manufacturers, this statute provides a clear roadmap for challenging design defect claims. They can focus on refuting the existence or feasibility of a proposed safer alternative, arguing that it would have impaired the product’s utility, or demonstrating that the alternative was not technologically or economically viable when the product was made. The statute’s exclusions for environmental torts and federally regulated drugs/devices also clarify the scope of liability, directing specific types of cases to alternative legal frameworks. Ultimately, Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.005 streamlines design defect litigation by focusing on objective, demonstrable criteria, making expert witness testimony indispensable and shaping discovery strategies to uncover specific design alternatives and their practical implications. Understanding this statute is paramount for any party involved in a Texas product liability design defect claim.