Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed a products liability action arising from a fire that destroyed the plaintiff's Foretravel motor home and caused personal injuries. The court rejected challenges concerning cross-examination and omitted warranty instructions, but held that the jury was given an erroneous causation instruction under Texas strict liability law. The judgment was reversed and remanded for a determination based on the producing-cause standard.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting Bragg's cross-examination of Foretravel's expert witness.
- Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that an express or implied warranty existed between the parties when Bragg did not request the instruction or object to its omission.
- Whether the trial court's proximate-cause instruction was legally erroneous because it required causation without intervention of any other cause rather than applying Texas's producing-cause standard.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting repetitive and argumentative cross-examination of Foretravel's expert witness.
- Bragg could not assign as error the trial court's failure to give express- or implied-warranty instructions because he neither requested those instructions nor objected to their omission.
- The trial court's causation instruction was erroneous because its requirement that the injury occur without intervention of any other cause improperly limited Texas's producing-cause standard.
Key quotations
“The extent of cross-examination is a matter within the trial court's discretion which an appellate court will not disturb absent proof of abuse of that discretion.” (¶ 7)
“A careful reading of Texas case law indicates that the defect of a supplier's product need only be the "producing cause" of the harm in order for the supplier to be held liable in a strict liability cause of action.” (¶ 16)
“The Court's instruction is, of course, inconsistent with Bragg's requested instruction and Texas law.” (¶ 21)
“Thus, we must reverse and remand for a determination of causation based upon the producing cause instruction requested by Bragg.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Bragg took delivery of a new Foretravel motor home and experienced engine trouble shortly afterward. After adding gasoline to the fuel tank, he attempted to prime the carburetor by pouring gasoline directly into it before cranking the starter. During the third attempt, the carburetor backfired, flames entered the motor home's interior, and the vehicle was destroyed. Bragg suffered burns to his hands.
Procedural history
Bragg sued Foretravel after his motor home caught fire and was destroyed, causing burns to Bragg and property loss. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Foretravel. Bragg appealed, challenging the limitation of cross-examination and the trial court's jury instructions concerning warranty and producing cause.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for a determination of causation based upon the producing-cause instruction requested by Bragg.