Smith v. Aqua-Flo, Inc.
2000 WL 553295, 23 S.W.3d 473 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a design defect claim in a products liability action, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a safer alternative design was both technologically and economically feasible at the time of manufacture. A manufacturer of a non-defective component part is not liable for defects in the final assembled product that it did not design or assemble.
Facts:
- In 1980, Aqua-Flo, Inc. manufactured a water pump.
- In 1993, the Smith family was given a used spa that contained the Aqua-Flo pump.
- Mr. Smith installed the spa and checked the suction covers, feeling no unusual strain.
- In the summer of 1994, the Smiths' six-year-old daughter, Stephanie, was using the spa.
- Stephanie's hair became entangled in one of the spa's plastic intake suction covers, which were not manufactured by Aqua-Flo.
- The entanglement resulted in Stephanie's drowning.
- When Stephanie was pulled from the spa, the drain cover remained tangled in her hair.
Procedural Posture:
- The Smith family (the Smiths) filed a lawsuit in a Texas trial court against multiple defendants, including Aqua-Flo, Inc.
- The Smiths settled their claims with all defendants except Aqua-Flo.
- The case against Aqua-Flo proceeded to a jury trial on claims of negligence, gross negligence, and strict products liability for design defect and failure to warn.
- At the close of all evidence, the trial court granted Aqua-Flo's motion for a directed verdict on the Smiths' claims for design defect and gross negligence.
- The remaining claims of negligence and failure to warn were submitted to the jury, which returned a take-nothing verdict in favor of Aqua-Flo.
- The Smiths (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, challenging the directed verdicts and the jury's verdict.
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 products liability design defect claim, does a plaintiff provide legally sufficient evidence of a safer alternative design by showing only its technological availability at the time of manufacture, without also presenting evidence of its economic feasibility?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Tim Taft
No. In a design defect claim, a plaintiff fails to provide legally sufficient evidence of a safer alternative design without presenting proof of both its technological and economic feasibility. The Smiths' expert testified that pressure-sensitive shut-off technology was technologically available in 1980 but offered no evidence regarding its economic feasibility, which is a separate and essential element of the claim. The court reasoned that technological feasibility (the ability to create a feature) and economic feasibility (the affordability of implementing it) are distinct concepts requiring separate proof. Furthermore, the court held that Aqua-Flo, as the manufacturer of a non-defective component part (the pump), is not liable for defects in the final product (the spa system) that it did not design or assemble. The Smiths' actual complaint concerned the spa's plumbing and drain covers, which were selected and integrated by the spa manufacturer, not Aqua-Flo.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in Texas design defect cases, solidifying that technological and economic feasibility are two distinct and mandatory elements of proof for a safer alternative design. It also robustly applies the component part doctrine, providing significant protection to manufacturers of individual parts that are integrated into a larger system by a third party. This forces plaintiffs to focus liability on the final product assembler, who makes the ultimate design choices, rather than suing every component supplier in the chain. The case clarifies that a component is not defective simply because it is part of a dangerous final product.
