BEAUMONT — A Texas Court of Appeals recently dismissed an appeal in a products liability case.
The 9th District of Texas Court of Appeals heard a case in which the appellant, William Morris, as administrator of the estate of Larry Morris, appealed the decision to allow separate special appearances for the appellees, Reliance Worldwide Pty Ltd, GSA Group Pty Ltd, GSA Industries Pty Ltd (Reliance Defendants) and H G Spec Inc.
According to court documents, on July 22, 2011, Larry Morris was a resident of EduCare Community Living Corp. While he was being given a bath, the attendant allegedly left him alone with the water running.
Despite having a “scald protector” installed to regulate the water temperature, Larry Morris was allegedly found in the bathtub with second- and third-degree burns. Larry Morris died from those burns, the William Morris alleges.
The Reliance Defendants and H G Spec design and manufacture the scald protector that EduCare uses to prevent the water from reaching scalding temperatures.
William Morris filed a strict liability case against the Reliance Defendants and H.G. Spec. Each of the four parties filed and were granted special appearances.
William Morris appealed the special appearances, claiming the trial court had a personal jurisdiction over H G Spec. That means if the company was operated in Texas, the court has jurisdictional power over the company. According to the opinion, he said the company is a Canadian company that does business in Texas.
He also claimed, “the trial court had specific jurisdiction over all of the Reliance Defendants,” which means the same are personal jurisdiction. According to the opinion, he said they were Australian companies that did business in Texas.
In the Feb. 28 opinion, the court explored the Texas long-arm statute that says a company is considered to do business in Texas if they have contracts with Texas residents, commits a tort in Texas or recruits Texas residents.
Using this statute, the court may be able to determine whether it has a specific jurisdiction.
“Specific jurisdiction exists when there is evidence that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum’s jurisdiction by contacts or activities in the forum state and the cause of action a rises from or is related to those contacts or activities,” the opinion stated.
H G Spec argued that the company solely operated in Canada, not in Texas and that their contracts in Texas were sporadic not continuous.
In the case of H G Spec, the court dismissed William Morris’ appeals.
"The trial court did not err in granting H G Spec’s special appearance because the Plaintiff failed to present evidence to establish a substantial connection between H G Spec’s forum contacts and the operative facts," the court said.
The Reliance Defendants also argued that they solely operated in Australia and did not have continuous contracts in Texas.
The court dismissed those appeals, as well.
“There is a lack of evidence of a substantial connection between each of the Reliance Defendant’s contacts with Texas, if any, and the operative facts of the litigation," the court said.