AUSTIN – The Supreme Court of Texas has reversed an appeals court’s prior ruling and declared that a 15-year statute of repose under state law absolves Ford Motor Company of liability, in a personal injury lawsuit brought against the auto manufacturer.
On June 7, the state Supreme Court issued a ruling to that effect, reversing a ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas and declaring judgment in the favor of Ford and against plaintiffs Jennifer Parks (individually and as guardian of the person and estate of Samuel Rivera Gama) and Nicolasa Gama Dale.
State Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht authored the opinion in this case.
“Samuel Gama suffered serious injuries when his 2001 Ford Explorer Sport rolled over on the President George Bush Turnpike," Hecht wrote. "Two years later, on May 17, 2016, Gama’s wife, Jennifer Parks, brought products-liability claims individually and as Gama’s guardian against Ford Motor Company. Parks alleged that the Explorer’s design made it unstable and prone to rollovers, and that the design of its roof and restraint system increased the risk of injury in a crash.
"Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that Parks’ suit is foreclosed by the statute of repose in Section 16.012(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. With exceptions not applicable here, ‘a claimant must commence a products liability action against a manufacturer or seller of a product before the end of 15 years after the date of the sale of the product by the defendant,” Hecht said.
“The proceedings were protracted and winding. Both sides’ arguments evolved in the three years between Ford’s initial summary-judgment motion and the trial court order being appealed. The trial court granted Ford’s initial summary-judgment motion; then vacated that order and granted Parks’ motion for new trial; then denied Ford’s renewed summary-judgment motion; then denied Ford’s motion for reconsideration of that order; before reversing course again and granting yet another summary-judgment motion by Ford, which was the court’s final order.”
Hecht said that the evidence that Ford sold the Explorer to a dealership more than 15 years before Parks filed suit was “overwhelming”, pointing to multiple vehicle information reports which established the following timeline:
• Ford released the Explorer to the Town East Ford dealership on May 9, 2000;
• The Explorer was shipped or delivered to Town East on May 12, 2000;
• Town East sold or leased the Explorer to a retail customer in June 2000; and
• Parks filed suit on May 17, 2016.
Hecht added that Parks “did not challenge these dates, nor did she put on any evidence of her own to controvert Ford’s evidence of its process for selling vehicles to a dealership.”
But in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Parks did not contest that sale in Section 16.012(b) has the meaning set out in the Uniform Commercial Code or that Ford released the Explorer to Town East on May 9, 2000.
Instead, Parks argued that Ford is required to establish the specific date on which Town East paid Ford for the Explorer in full and that Ford had not done so – an argument with which the Fifth Circuit agreed, where it reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for Ford and remanded for further proceedings.
This result led Ford to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
“Ford argues that the court of appeals erred by requiring Ford to prove the exact date on which it received full payment for the Explorer and that the court compounded that error by construing Ford’s witness testimony to be inconsistent when it is not. Parks argues that for a defendant to obtain judgment under Section 16.012(b), it ‘must maintain records’ that prove ‘whether a sale occurred and when the price was paid’ and that Ford’s evidence here is inadequate under Rule 166a(c). We agree with Ford,” Hecht said.
“The parties agree that the Fifth Circuit’s…guess about the meaning of sale in Section 16.012(b) is correct. We too agree with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis. Sale means the transfer of title or property for a price. The Court of Appeals assumed – it cited no authority for this proposition, nor does Parks – that money must actually change hands before a sale is completed. But there is no textual basis in Section 16.012 for that assumption, and it is incompatible with other Texas law.”
Hecht explained that “under both the Uniform Commercial Code and the common law, a sale can – and often does – occur before payment is made” and thus, “the Court of Appeals erred by imposing on Ford the burden of proving the date that Town East paid Ford for the Explorer.”
“As the Fifth Circuit observed in Camacho v. Ford Motor Company, ‘the way the dealership financed the purchase is irrelevant to whether a sale occurred.’ And because the timing of a sale does not turn on the date of payment, if there is any inconsistency in Ford’s evidence regarding the timing of Town East’s payment to Ford for the Explorer, that inconsistency is immaterial and not a basis for denying or reversing summary judgment,” Hecht said.
“Statutes of repose operate to relieve defendants of the burden of defending claims ‘where evidence may prove elusive due to…lost or destroyed records.’ So while Ford was able to produce documentary evidence of the Explorer’s sales date here, a defendant will not always have such evidence and need not prove an exact sales date to be entitled to judgment. It is enough for the defendant to prove that the sale must have occurred outside the statutory period. Ford’s evidence easily meets this test. The Mini 999 report establishes that Ford released and shipped the Explorer to Town East in May 2000. Parks filed suit 16 years later in May 2016…none of this evidence was controverted. Ford is entitled to summary judgment. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for Ford.”
Supreme Court of Texas case 23-0048
Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas case 05-21-00632-CV
From the Southeast Texas Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com