Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey
609 S.W.2d 743 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability case for defective design, evidence of the 'state of the art' at the time of manufacture—including the technological environment, scientific knowledge, and economic feasibility of a safer alternative—is admissible and relevant to determine whether the product was defectively designed.
Facts:
- In March 1973, Boatland of Houston, Inc. sold a 16-foot bass boat to Samuel Bailey.
- The boat was not equipped with an automatic engine cut-off device, or 'kill switch'.
- In May 1973, while operating the boat, Samuel Bailey struck a submerged tree stump and was thrown into the water.
- The boat's motor continued to run, causing the boat to circle back.
- Bailey was struck and killed by the boat's propeller.
- At the time the boat was manufactured and sold, the concept of kill switches was known, particularly homemade versions on racing boats, but commercially produced kill switches for bass boats were not yet on the market or widely available.
- One inventor had developed a 'Quick Kill' switch in late 1972 but did not begin marketing it until 1974.
Procedural Posture:
- The widow and children of Samuel Bailey (the Baileys) sued Boatland of Houston, Inc. (Boatland) in a Texas trial court, alleging wrongful death under a theory of strict liability for defective design.
- A jury failed to find that the boat was defective and found for Boatland on several defensive issues.
- The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Boatland.
- The Baileys, as appellants, appealed to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court erred by admitting evidence about the unavailability of kill switches.
- Boatland of Houston, Inc., as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a strict liability design defect case, is evidence of the 'state of the art,' including the commercial unavailability of a proposed safety feature at the time of manufacture, admissible to rebut a plaintiff's claim that a safer alternative design was feasible?
Opinions:
Majority - McGee, Justice
Yes. In a strict liability design defect case, evidence of the 'state of the art' is admissible to rebut a plaintiff's claim that a safer alternative design was feasible. The court distinguished 'state of the art,' which refers to the technological environment and feasibility at the time of manufacture, from 'industry custom.' In a design defect claim, a jury must balance the product's utility against its risks, and the feasibility of safer alternatives is a critical part of that analysis. When a plaintiff introduces evidence that a safer design was possible, the defendant is entitled to rebut that with evidence of the limitations on that feasibility, such as its commercial unavailability or impracticality at the time the product was sold. This evidence is relevant to the product's condition and its alleged defect, not to the defendant's negligence or degree of care.
Dissenting - Campbell, Justice
No. Evidence of commercial unavailability of a safety device to a retail seller is not admissible because the focus of strict liability is the product, not the conduct of the seller. The dissent argued 'state of the art' means the state of technical and scientific knowledge, not commercial availability or industry practice. Since the concept of a kill switch was simple, known, and technically feasible for the manufacturer to implement, its commercial unavailability should not be a defense. Admitting this evidence improperly shifts the jury's focus from the product's defectiveness to the reasonableness of the seller's actions, creating different liability standards for retailers and manufacturers and allowing an industry to set its own standard of care by controlling product availability.
Concurring - Pope, Justice
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's holding on the admissibility of state-of-the-art evidence and the ultimate judgment based on the jury's 'no defect' finding. However, the concurrence argues for reforming products liability defenses. It contends that defenses like 'misuse' and 'assumption of risk' are functionally equivalent to contributory negligence and create confusion. The justice advocates for abandoning these separate defenses and instead adopting a comparative fault system, where a jury would apportion damages based on the percentages of fault attributable to the product's defect and the plaintiff's own conduct.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the role of 'state of the art' evidence in Texas strict products liability law. By distinguishing technologically feasible 'state of the art' from mere 'industry custom,' the court allows defendants to introduce evidence of the practical and commercial limitations on proposed safer designs at the time of manufacture. This decision provides a crucial defensive tool, framing the evidence as relevant to the product's objective defectiveness rather than the defendant's subjective negligence. The ruling shapes modern design defect litigation by requiring both parties to present evidence on the historical technological context and feasibility of alternative designs.
