Retailer Dismissed Under Innocent-Retailer Statute And Manufacturer Wins Summary Judgment Because Plaintiff Lacked Expert Testimony

• Published date: 06 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Consumer Protection, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Product Liability & Safety, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP
• Author: Mr Anthony Nathan Garg and Christopher M. Murphy

Key Takeaways:

• Retailers should be aware of defenses under Texas innocent-retailer statute in products liability cases
• Lack of expert testimony in support of product liability claims can be fatal to claims against manufacturers in Texas

---

A recent Texas federal court decision, Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:21-CV-023, 2022 WL 1471425 (N.D. Tex. May 10, 2022), highlights the protection that the Texas innocent-retailer statute provides to retailers in products liability cases and demonstrates how the plaintiff's failure to introduce expert evidence can be fatal to the plaintiff's products liability claims at the summary judgment stage.

Johnson arose from an accident in which the plaintiff LaQuintin Johnson alleged that the accelerator pedal on the Ford Fusion he was driving got stuck and caused him to rear-end another car.¹ Someone else had purchased the Ford Fusion "as is" from the car dealership. Johnson sued the car manufacturer (Ford), the car dealership (Yes Indeed), and the owner of the car dealership (Pete Chavez) in a Texas state court.² Johnson claimed that "Ford should be liable for its manufacture, design, and failure to warn of its defective product" because Ford "knew or should have known of the propensity of the accelerator control pedal to become disconnected or break without warning, that the defective pedal rendered the vehicle unreasonably dangerous and that the defective pedal caused his injuries."³ He brought claims against the car dealership and its owner for negligent misrepresentation and failure to warn him of the pedal's alleged defect.⁴

Ford removed the case to federal court on the grounds that the car dealership and its owner were improperly joined.⁵ Johnson failed to timely designate any expert witnesses except for the health care providers who treated his injuries.⁶ All three defendants moved to dismiss Yes Indeed and Pete Chavez as improperly joined.⁷ Ford also moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Johnson failed to designate a product-liability expert.⁸

Improper Joinder

The court explained that the defendant has a "heavy burden" of proving that joinder was improper. The removing party must show: (1) that there was actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts; or (2) that the plaintiff is unable to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant in state court.⁹ The defendants argued that Johnson's claims against the non-diverse car dealership and its owner were barred by the Texas...