JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza
51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1104, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 619, 257 S.W.3d 701 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for breach of an implied warranty under the Texas Uniform Commercial Code that seeks damages for personal injury or death is considered a cause of action based on tort, and is therefore subject to the state's proportionate responsibility statute.
Facts:
- JCW Electronics, Inc. (JCW) contracted with the Port Isabel Police Department to install collect-only telephones for inmate use in the city jail.
- JCW represented to the Port Isabel Chief of Police that the telephones were safe for unattended or unsupervised use by inmates.
- On November 14, 1999, Rolando Domingo Montez was arrested for public intoxication and placed in a Port Isabel jail cell.
- While in his cell, Montez used the JCW-provided telephone to call his mother.
- On the day he was scheduled to be released, Montez was found dead in his cell, having hanged himself with the telephone cord.
Procedural Posture:
- Pearl Iriz Garza sued the City of Port Isabel and JCW Electronics, Inc. in a Texas trial court.
- A jury found in Garza's favor on claims of negligence and breach of implied warranty of fitness.
- The jury apportioned liability as 60% to Rolando Montez, 25% to the City of Port Isabel, and 15% to JCW.
- The trial court granted Garza's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and rendered judgment for her against JCW.
- JCW, as appellant, appealed to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Garza, the appellee, holding that Chapter 33's proportionate responsibility scheme did not apply to UCC implied warranty claims.
- The Supreme Court of Texas granted review of the case.
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 Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which apportions responsibility in tort actions and bars recovery for claimants found more than 50% at fault, apply to a claim for breach of an implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code seeking damages for death?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Medina
Yes. A claim for breach of implied warranty seeking damages for personal injury or death is a cause of action based on tort and is subject to Chapter 33's proportionate responsibility scheme. The court reasoned that Texas law has long recognized that implied warranties for personal injury are grounded more in tort than contract. The nature of the claim is determined by the damages sought; personal injury damages sound in tort, while purely economic damages sound in contract. The 1995 legislative amendments to Chapter 33, which replaced a specific list of claims with the broad phrase 'any cause of action based on tort,' were intended to expand, not restrict, the statute's scope. Unlike UCC Article 3, UCC Article 2 (governing sales and warranties) lacks its own comprehensive loss-allocation scheme, so applying Chapter 33 does not disrupt the UCC's framework. Because the jury found the decedent 60% responsible for his own death, his mother's claim is barred under Chapter 33's rule that a claimant cannot recover if their responsibility is greater than 50%.
Concurring - Chief Justice Jefferson
Yes. The proportionate responsibility scheme applies to this type of implied warranty claim. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion, this opinion focuses on the proper way to submit the issue to a jury. It notes that the seller's fault is based on a breach of warranty, while the buyer's fault is based on negligence. Therefore, a proper apportionment question should ask the jury to determine each party's 'percentage of responsibility,' a broader term that encompasses both types of conduct. However, in this case, even though the jury was only asked to apportion 'negligence,' its finding that the decedent was 60% negligent is sufficient to bar recovery under the statute, making the outcome correct.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the classification of personal injury claims arising from breach of implied warranty as tort actions in Texas. It prevents plaintiffs from using a UCC warranty claim as a strategic maneuver to bypass the state's proportionate responsibility statute, which would otherwise reduce or bar their recovery based on their own fault. The case reinforces the principle that the substance of a claim—specifically, the type of damages sought—determines its legal character, rather than the formal label applied to the cause of action. This has a significant impact on products liability litigation by ensuring that principles of comparative fault apply consistently across different theories of liability, including negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty.
