Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009 – Limited Liability for Failure to Retrofit Certain Vehicles

Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009 Summary

This statute in the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code addresses a specific limitation on liability for sellers who rent or lease certain types of vehicles. At its core, it states that these sellers generally cannot be held liable for failing to “retrofit” a vehicle with new equipment or parts that weren’t originally included when the vehicle was manufactured or sold. The term “retrofit” is explicitly defined as adding new, non-original equipment, distinguishing it from routine maintenance or repairs due to wear and tear or accident damage.

The protections of this section are not universal; they only apply to particular motor vehicles. These include vehicles with a gross weight of at least 6,000 pounds, those governed by 49 U.S.C. Section 30106 (which relates to commercial motor vehicles), and vehicles not primarily designed to transport 10 or fewer people. This typically means the statute applies to larger, commercial-type vehicles like delivery trucks or certain vans, rather than standard passenger cars.

The key condition for this liability protection is that the component parts or equipment in question were not required by federal motor vehicle safety standards (under 49 C.F.R. Section 571.1 et seq.) at the time the vehicle was manufactured or sold. This means a seller is generally not responsible for upgrading a vehicle to meet safety standards that emerged *after* its initial production. However, there’s a crucial exception: if a law or regulation requires a mandatory recall or retrofit for the vehicle *after* its manufacture or sale, and the seller fails to comply, then the liability protection offered by this statute does not apply.

Purpose of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009

The legislative intent behind this section is to provide a sensible limitation on the liability of businesses that rent or lease specific kinds of motor vehicles, primarily those used for commercial purposes. Without such a provision, these sellers could face an impossible burden: continuously upgrading their fleets with every new safety innovation or technology that emerges after a vehicle has been manufactured and put into service. This would create significant operational and financial challenges, potentially hindering the availability and affordability of rented or leased commercial vehicles.

By anchoring liability to federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect *at the time of manufacture or sale*, the statute clarifies the duty of care for these sellers. It acknowledges that product design and safety requirements evolve, but it prevents the retroactive imposition of new standards onto older vehicles. The law recognizes that a vehicle, once compliant with all applicable safety regulations when it left the factory, should not indefinitely require subsequent, non-mandated retrofitting by a subsequent lessor to avoid liability.

The inclusion of the exception for mandatory recalls or post-sale retrofit requirements is vital. It ensures that while sellers are protected from claims based on the absence of future safety advancements, they are still held accountable for addressing known safety defects or new mandatory safety upgrades as required by law. This balances the practical realities of vehicle fleet management with the paramount concern for public safety, particularly for vehicles that often operate with significant weight and in commercial capacities.

Real-World Example of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009

Imagine “Big Haul Logistics,” a company that leases a fleet of large delivery trucks to various businesses in Texas. In 2015, Big Haul leased a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 20,000 pounds (meeting the 6,000-pound threshold and other criteria) to “City Express Delivery.” This truck, manufactured in 2014, complied with all federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect at that time.

In 2023, while driven by a City Express employee, the truck is involved in an accident. The driver of another vehicle sues City Express and Big Haul Logistics, claiming that the truck was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), such as automatic emergency braking, which became standard on many new commercial vehicles by 2020. The plaintiff argues that Big Haul Logistics should have retrofitted the 2014 truck with these newer safety features.

Under Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009, Big Haul Logistics would likely not be held liable for failing to install the ADAS technology. The statute protects sellers (lessors) like Big Haul from liability for not retrofitting vehicles with equipment that was “not required by applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards… in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured or sold” (i.e., in 2014). Since automatic emergency braking was not a mandatory FMVSS for that class of vehicle in 2014, Big Haul has a strong defense.

However, if, for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had issued a mandatory recall in 2020 requiring all 2014-model trucks of that type to be retrofitted with a specific steering component due to a newly discovered defect, and Big Haul Logistics failed to perform that mandatory recall, then the exception in Subsection (d) would apply. In that scenario, Big Haul would lose its protection under this statute and could be held liable for its failure to comply with the mandatory recall.

Related Statutes

This section of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code is situated within Chapter 82, Products Liability, meaning it relates to the broader legal framework governing product defects in Texas. Other relevant statutes include:

• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.001 (Definitions): This section provides general definitions for terms used throughout the Products Liability chapter, such as “claimant,” “manufacturer,” and “seller,” which would be crucial for understanding the parties involved in any action under § 82.009.
• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002 (Liability of Commercial Seller for Harm Caused by Product): This general provision establishes the liability of commercial sellers for harm caused by a defective product, laying the groundwork that § 82.009 then carves out an exception from for specific retrofit scenarios.
• Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.003 (Inherent Risk): This section deals with liability for products that carry an inherent risk, which might be relevant in arguments about the fundamental safety of a vehicle, though § 82.009 specifically addresses *post-manufacture* upgrades.
• 49 U.S.C. Section 30106 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act): Referenced directly in § 82.009(b)(2), this federal statute is a critical component. It outlines federal preemption regarding motor vehicle safety standards, emphasizing the federal role in setting baseline safety requirements for vehicles. The Texas statute relies on federal law to define the types of vehicles it applies to.
• 49 C.F.R. Section 571.1 et seq. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards): Also directly referenced, this is the set of regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that specifies the minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. These are the “federal motor vehicle safety standards” against which a vehicle’s original compliance is measured under § 82.009.

Case Law Interpreting Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009

A search for specific Texas case law directly interpreting Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009, “Limited Liability for Failure to Retrofit Certain Rented or Leased Vehicles,” on Google Scholar does not reveal a significant body of published appellate court opinions that provide extensive interpretation of this particular section. This might be due to its highly specific nature, its relatively clear language regarding the parameters of liability, or perhaps that disputes involving this section are often resolved before reaching appellate review or are not published in easily searchable databases.

Therefore, at this time, there is no widely available published case law providing detailed interpretation of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009 to link to directly.

Why Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.009 plays a critical role in personal injury litigation involving accidents with rented or leased commercial vehicles in Texas. For both plaintiffs and defendants, understanding this statute is paramount for strategizing and assessing potential liability.

For plaintiffs who have been injured in an accident involving a rented or leased vehicle, this statute sets a specific boundary for claims based on a vehicle’s alleged lack of modern safety features. If a plaintiff argues that the vehicle was defective because it didn’t have a safety component that is standard on *newer* models (e.g., advanced stability control, specific types of airbags, or collision avoidance systems), § 82.009 can act as a shield for the lessor. To overcome this defense, the plaintiff’s legal team must demonstrate one of two things:
1. The missing component *was* required by federal safety standards at the time the vehicle was manufactured or sold.
2. A mandatory recall or retrofit requiring the installation of that component was issued *after* the vehicle’s manufacture or sale, and the lessor failed to comply.

This means a plaintiff’s attorney must conduct thorough discovery into the vehicle’s manufacturing date, the federal safety standards in effect at that time, and any subsequent recalls, rather than simply pointing to the absence of a feature present on current-model vehicles.

For defendants, particularly businesses that rent or lease fleets of commercial-type vehicles, § 82.009 provides substantial protection against claims alleging failure to upgrade their older vehicles to contemporary safety standards. This statute allows them to anchor their defense to the safety requirements applicable when the vehicle was new. It prevents the imposition of a continuous, open-ended duty to retrofit every vehicle in their fleet with every new safety technology, thereby limiting their financial exposure and operational burden. However, this protection is contingent on their compliance with all mandatory recalls and post-sale retrofit regulations. Failure to honor a mandatory recall would negate the statute’s protection and could expose the lessor to significant liability.

Ultimately, this statute shapes the scope of negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability claims in Texas personal injury cases involving certain rented or leased vehicles, directing the focus towards compliance with safety standards at the time of initial production and diligent adherence to mandatory safety updates.