Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that three defendant corporations were not liable to a consumer who allegedly was injured when she was struck by a grocery cart at a Wal-Mart store.

Joretta Williams allegedly suffered ankle and back injuries after being struck by an online grocery pickup cart at a Wal-Mart Supercenter. She sued Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC and “Cart” defendants National Cart Co., Win-Holt, and Cannon Equipment, alleging products liability claims for defective design, manufacturing, and marketing. The Cart defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Granting the motion, the district court noted that a fundamental principle of traditional products liability law is that a plaintiff must prove the defendant actually manufactured, sold, distributed, or supplied the injury-causing product. For strict products liability, the court found that a plaintiff must show the seller was engaged in the business of selling the product and the product reached the consumer without substantial change from the condition in which it was sold. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant supplied the product that allegedly caused the injury, the court added.

Applying these principles here, the court found that the plaintiff had not alleged any non-conclusory allegations that any one of the Cart defendants was responsible for selling the specific grocery cart at issue here. All three of the Cart defendants could not have placed the grocery cart into the stream of commerce, the court said, noting that the plaintiff had not provided any identifying information or alleged anything that would indicate which defendant was responsible for the grocery cart. As a result, the court found, the plaintiff had not alleged anything to “nudge” her claims “across the finish line.”

Concluding that it could not find Texas case law recognizing the alternative liability theory—which relaxes the burden of identifying an actual tortfeasor—the court held that the plaintiff was not relieved of the burden of pleading facially plausible claims demonstrating the Cart defendants caused the alleged harm. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the Cart defendants with prejudice.

Citation: Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC, No. 4:24-cv-00583-P (N.D. Texas Nov. 4, 2024).

Comment: See also Eisenbrey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 24-6299 (MAS) (TJB), 2024 WL 4712833 (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2024). There, Theresa Eisenbrey went to a Wal-Mart store and walked through the carpet section. A sharp section of allegedly unsecured carpeting or carpet samples sticking out from a shelf caught her pants and lacerated her leg. She sued Wal-Mart and others, alleging products liability claims under New Jersey law and breach of express and implied warranties. Wal-Mart moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion. The court reasoned, in part, that the plaintiff had failed to identify the carpeting’s intended purpose—which is one of the required elements of a products liability claim—and failed to plead that the product’s risk of harm outweighed its utility. The plaintiff’s conclusory statement that the carpet’s sharp edging had caused a serious risk of harm to customers walking by did not adequately plead a design defect, the court said, adding that the plaintiff also failed to allege whether the sharp edge deviated from the manufacturer’s specifications.