vRide, a vanpool service, sought statutory indemnity from Ford after an accident, contending that the plaintiffs alleged – in substance – a products liability claim. The Fifth Court disagreed: The Cernoseks’ petition did not allege that the Ford van was unreasonably dangerous, was defective by manufacture or design, was rendered defective because it lacked certain safety features, or was otherwise defective. Instead, the petition alleged that vRide represented its vehicles had certain safety features when in actuality the vehicles did not have those safety features and that vRide failed to furnish vehicles with those safety features. In short, the Cernoseks’ petition did not contain allegations that the damages arose out of personal injury, death, or property damage allegedly caused by a defective product.” vRide v. Ford, No. 05-15-01377-CV (Feb. 2, 2017) (mem. op.)
In In re Michelin North America, Inc., the Dallas Court of Appeals conditionally granted a writ of mandamus to protect Michelin from being forced to produce certain discovery. The district court ordered Michelin to produce specifications for tires similar to the allegedly defective tire at issue in that case in addition to financial information for the decade prior to the litigation.
The court of appeals held that Michelin satisfied its burden under Texas Rule of Evidence 507 to resist the discovery of trade secrets through the affidavit of an engineer who worked in Michelin’s legal department but that Michelin failed to satisfy its burden of proving its financial data was a trade secret because it failed to offer an affidavit until after the hearing on the motion to compel (helpful hint: it should be filed 7 days before the hearing under TRCP 193.4(a) if it is in affidavit form). The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden under Rule 507 to show “with specificity” exactly how the lack of information would impair the presentation of the case on the merits “to the point that an unjust result is a real, rather than a merely possible, threat.” On the issue of financial information, though Michelin failed to timely prove its trade secrets privilege, Michelin was saved by a secondary argument that the district court’s order was too broad because the discovery included financial information from several years earlier and only current financial information is relevant for calculation of punitive damages.
The court today issued an opinion in a products liability indemnification case arising out of a helicopter crash in North Carolina. The company that operated the helicopter sued the manufacturer of a defective gearbox after the operator settled with the estate of the deceased pilot for $2.5 million. The gearbox maker had agreed to indemnify the operator for all losses, claims, and expenses arising out of any defective work. The jury found that the negligence of both parties had been a proximate cause of the accident, but the trial court set aside that finding with respect to the gearbox manufacturer and rendered a take-nothing judgment on the operator’s indemnification claim. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence that the operator’s negligence caused the helicopter to crash. The court then accepted the manufacturer’s argument that the express negligence doctrine barred the operator’s indemnity claim because the indemnity agreement failed to state that it would require the manufacturer to indemnify against the operator’s own negligence. Even though the manufacturer’s own negligence had been found to be a proximate cause of the crash, the operator could not recover against the manufacturer because the parties did not contract for proportionate indemnity.
American Eurocopter Corp. v. CJ Systems Aviation Group, No. 05-10-00342-CV