Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma
2007 Tex. LEXIS 1130, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 250, 242 S.W.3d 32 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability case alleging a manufacturing defect, the jury charge must include the essential element that the product deviated from its specifications or planned output in a manner that renders it unreasonably dangerous. Omitting this element from the jury instruction constitutes reversible error.
Facts:
- In March 1999, Tiburicio Ledesma, Jr. purchased a new Ford F-350 Super Duty pickup truck for his business.
- On June 5, 1999, after driving the truck about 4,100 miles, Ledesma was accelerating on a street when he claimed the truck began to lurch and he lost control.
- Ledesma's truck then struck two parked cars and a curb before coming to a stop.
- An inspection of the truck revealed that its rear leaf spring and axle assembly had come apart, causing the drive shaft to dislodge from the transmission.
- Ledesma claimed a defectively manufactured u-bolt, which did not conform to Ford's specifications, caused the assembly to fail before the collision, leading to the accident.
- Ford Motor Co. contended that the axle assembly failed not because of a defect, but as a result of the significant forces exerted on it when Ledesma struck the parked vehicles and curb.
Procedural Posture:
- Tiburicio Ledesma, Jr. sued Ford Motor Co. in a Texas state trial court, alleging a manufacturing defect.
- The jury found in favor of Ledesma, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- Ford Motor Co., as appellant, appealed to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Ledesma, the appellee.
- Ford Motor Co. sought and was granted review by 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:
Does a jury instruction for a manufacturing defect claim that omits the essential element that the product must deviate from its intended design or specifications constitute reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Willett
Yes. A jury charge that omits the essential element of a manufacturing defect claim—that the product deviated from its specifications or intended design—is legally erroneous and constitutes reversible error. The trial court's instruction, which only asked if a 'condition' of the product rendered it unreasonably dangerous, was insufficient because it failed to distinguish a manufacturing defect from a design defect. A manufacturing defect requires proof that the specific product departed from its intended design, not merely that a product failure occurred. The court reasoned that this 'deviation from design' element is critical to prevent juries from imposing liability based on speculation or the incorrect premise that any product malfunction is proof of a defect. Furthermore, the court held that the standard definition of 'producing cause' was archaic and should be replaced with a two-part test requiring proof that the cause was both a 'substantial factor' and a 'but-for' cause of the injury.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the essential proof required for a manufacturing defect claim under Texas law, establishing that a 'deviation from design or specifications' is a distinct and necessary element that must be submitted to the jury. By invalidating the then-current Texas Pattern Jury Charge for manufacturing defects, the ruling mandates greater precision in jury instructions and prevents plaintiffs from conflating manufacturing and design defect theories. The case also modernizes the definition of 'producing cause,' replacing antiquated language with the clearer 'substantial factor' and 'but-for' causation standard, which has broad implications for jury charges in various tort cases across Texas.
Unlock the full brief for Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma