Misuse Will Not Bar Recovery in Strict Liability Unless It Is the Sole Producing Cause of an Accident

Discusses Texas Civil Appeals Court case, General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins. Hopkins, who was rendered a quadriplegic after a pickup truck accident, sued both the manufacturer of the truck, General Motors Corp., and the dealer-seller, Bud Moore Chevrolet, Inc., in strict liability in tort. Because the jury failed to find that Hopkin's misuse was the sole producing cause of the injury, the trial court disregarded the jury findings on misuse and entered a judgment for Hopkins in the amount of $1,760,000.00. The court of civil appeals affirmed the judgment and held that misuse that was not the sole producing cause would not bar recovery when a defectively designed product was a producing cause of the injury. The issue of primary importance before the court in General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins, was whether misuse that was a producing cause, but not the sole producing cause of an accident, barred recovery in actions based on strict liability. The Hopkins decision is consistent with recent developments in strict liability that have enlarged the relief afforded an injured consumer under §402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. In accord with those decisions, the Hopkins court has chosen to place the primary emphasis on the product itself, rather than the conduct of the consumer. In so doing, the court of civil appeals in Hopkins has taken a significant step in eliminating the heretofore different treatment given misuse as distinguished from contributory negligence.