Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that the sellers of a John Deere commercial mower were improperly joined in a products liability suit brought by the mower’s operator, who was injured when the mower flipped over and exploded.

Marquis Coulter was driving a John Deere Commercial Ztrak Mower, model 017Z920M, when it flipped over and exploded. Coulter suffered second- and third-degree burns and required a long hospitalization. Coulter, along with his wife and minor children, filed a lawsuit in state court against manufacturer Deere & Co., as well as Tellus Equipment Solutions, LLC, and Cardinal Heavy Equipment Holdings, LLC, which allegedly maintained, serviced, and equipped the mower. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and gross negligence against the defendants and asserted additional claims for strict liability design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and breach of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability against Deere & Co. Suit claimed that the mower was improperly weighted and did not have a fuel system that was designed to mitigate the risk of fire.

Deere & Co. removed the case to federal court, asserting that jurisdiction was proper because the plaintiffs had improperly joined Tellus and Cardinal. After the plaintiffs moved to remand and filed an amended complaint, the defendants moved to dismiss.

The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion and granted Deere’s motion without prejudice. The court found that under the Texas Products Liability Act, Tex. Civil Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §82.003(a), a nonmanufacturing seller is not liable in a products liability suit unless an enumerated exception applies. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that two exceptions apply to Tellus and Cardinal. The first asserted exception—that the defendants had altered or modified the product—is not addressed in the plaintiffs’ petition, which does not describe how the defendants had altered the mower in a way that caused it to flip over and ignite, the court said. Moreover, the court found that the plaintiffs’ assertion that Tellus and Cardinal had actual knowledge of the mower’s alleged defect also is not supported by the complaint, which fails to plead defect-specific facts and offers mere conclusory allegations. Citing case law, the court added that Texas law requires actual knowledge of the condition that renders a product defective.

Consequently, the court held that the asserted exceptions do not apply. Nevertheless, the court added, courts have repeatedly rejected Texas state law claims against post-sale providers for negligent maintenance, repair, and service. Finding that the plaintiffs have not shown the possibility of recovery against Tellus and Cardinal, the court held that remand was not warranted.

Turning to Deere’s motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not stated a claim for design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, or breach of warranty. The court found that the plaintiffs had offered conclusory allegations and failed to provide a factual basis for their claims. Consequently, the court granted Deere’s motion without prejudice and with leave to amend, concluding that the other defendants’ motions are moot.

Citation: Coulter v. Deere & Co., 2022 WL 912778 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2022).