Morina et al v. Johnson Controls Inc.

Filing 105

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 90 Report and Recommendations,, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Johnson Controls Inc. ORDERING that pla manufacturing defect claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 5/31/2012. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

ALFREDO MORINA AND TEUTE
MORINA
Plaintiffs
V.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
Defendant

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 5:10CV125

Memorandum Order Adopting the Report of the Magistrate Judge
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate
Judge which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such
action has been presented for consideration. Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Defendant” or “JCI”) filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Alfredo Morina and Teute Morina (“Plaintiffs”)
filed a response to Defendant’s objections. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate
Judge’s findings and conclusions.
Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ design defect claim be denied. Specifically, Defendant asserts, as
a component part supplier, it cannot be held liable for seat and vehicle performance decisions that
were made by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). Defendant relies on Bostrom Seating, Inc. v. Crane
Carrier Co., 140 S.W.3d 681, 683 (Tex. 2004), asserting the general rule in Texas is that a
component part supplier is not liable for defects in the final product if the component was built in

accordance with the plans and specifications of a customer. According to Defendant, it is undisputed
that Defendant’s seat complied with Ford’s specifications. Defendant stresses it did not participate
in integrating the component seat into the Ford Expedition itself.
In Bostrom, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether the evidence presented during trial
demonstrated that the seat supplied by Bostrom to Crane was itself defective. Bostrom,140 S.W.3d
at 684. The court of appeals had held there was conflicting testimony regarding the alleged
defectiveness of the design of the garbage truck and of its component parts. Specifically, the court
of appeals focused on testimony from the plaintiff’s expert “who was critical of the Bostrom seat
because it failed to keep height retention in a crash sequence, did not have an armrest or headrest and
did not have a contoured seat.” Id.
The Texas Supreme Court noted the “testimony” relied upon by the court of appeals had
actually been read by Crane’s attorney from a deposition the plaintiff’s expert had given prior to trial
and that the comments were read out of context. Id. Subsequent to Crane’s questioning of the
plaintiff’s expert, Bostrom’s counsel asked the expert whether the seat was defectively designed or
whether it was defective in terms of the application within the Crane vehicle. Id. The expert clarified
that “this seat, in some other environment, may function and work perfectly safe, but in this
environment it can’t. . . .” Id. The Texas Supreme Court also noted that at trial, the expert
repeatedly testified that the seat itself was not defective. Id. Not only did Crane design the garbage
truck and choose the seat it would use, but also none of the evidence cited by Crane could be used
to prove that the Bostrom seat was in and of itself defective. Id. “Even Crane’s own attorney, in his
opening statement, admitted that ‘there isn’t anything wrong with the seat.’” Id.
concluded as follows:
2

The court

At best, the evidence supports a possible conclusion that using the seat in this
specific truck created an allegedly defective restraint system design. Crane was in
total control of the design of that system, and Bostrom, playing no part in the design
of the truck, cannot be held liable for its possible defectiveness.
Id. at 684-85.
As noted in Bostrom, a component part which is not itself defective and is appropriate for
certain other applications does not become “defective” simply because it was used in an
inappropriate application. Id. at 683–84 (component seat which was not itself defective, and which
“in another application, not the one on this vehicle, could work and perform under many conditions
well,” was not defective as integrated into vehicle restraint system where manufacturer had no
control over design of restraint system). Likewise, in Bennett v. Span Industries, Inc., 628 S.W.2d
470 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 1981, reh’d denied), the court noted there was no “summary judgment
evidence tending to show that Span introduced into commerce a defectively designed or
manufactured product.” Id. at 472. According to the court of appeals, Span did not design or
manufacture an integrated roof containing defectively designed or dangerous openings; it simply
manufactured and sold concrete sections which were then installed according to the design specified
by the owner. Id. The court specifically noted, however, that had “one of the sections been
defectively designed or manufactured so that it gave way with Mr. Bennett or otherwise caused him
to fall, a legitimate claim of products liability might be made.” Id.
Here, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the evidence, when viewed in the light
most favorable to Plaintiffs, creates a fact issue as to whether the JCI seat was itself defective.
According to Mr. Syson, Plaintiffs’ expert, the JCI seat was itself defective because, among other
things, the inboard backrest attachment separated during the initial side impact. (Syson Report at

3

pgs. 6-7)(Syson Depo. at 102:4-20). Mr. Syson’s opinions, when viewed in the light most favorable
to Plaintiffs, provide some evidence that the JCI seat, in and of itself, was defective. In addition to
the opinions provided in his affidavit and report, Mr. Syson confirmed in his deposition that it is his
opinion that the “backrest, meaning specifically the hinge pin, separated in the initial side impact.”
Id. at 102:4-20. Mr. Syson further testified that the inboard pivot is not intended to separate during
a crash. Id. at 18:6-14.
As further noted by the Magistrate Judge, Mr. Roger Burnett, a Ford Motor Company
engineer, testified that Ford did not tell, instruct, or require JCI to use a seatback pivot design for the
1997-2002 Ford Expedition. (Burnett Depo. at 155:25-156:5). According to Mr. Burnett, JCI
exclusively determined they needed to use a seatback hinge pivot pin for the 2002 Ford Expedition.
Id. at 156:6-13. Mr. Burnett stated Ford provided JCI, as a component part supplier, with a “set of
performance specifications” and expected the supplier’s “designs to meet the performance
specifications.” Id. at 156:18-157:3. According to Mr. Burnett, Ford expects the seat to be designed
to meet Ford’s performance specifications so that the seat “will provide proper restraint throughout
an accident.” Id. at 157:9-23.
Mr. Burnett stated that Ford expects that its seat restraint system will not separate in an
accident that is consistent with the forces that are seen in the various test parameters set forth in the
design specifications, but he also indicated there is no requirement that the structure of the seats must
stay intact in every field scenario. Mr. Burnett stated it is possible for people to get seriously injured
or killed if a vehicle seat does not perform properly in an accident, and a separated hinge pivot pin
could be a factor in such people getting seriously injured or killed. Id. at 159:12-23. According to
Mr. Burnett, the seatback hinge pivot pin in the Morina Ford Expedition separated. Id. at 160:254

161:8.
Mr. Burnett further testified that Ford required JCI to perform the necessary engineering
analysis that is needed to make certain that the seats are going to provide adequate occupant
protection. Id. at 165:4-13. According to Mr. Burnett, engineering analysis includes things such as
design failure affects; analysis failure mode affects analysis; fault free analysis; and risk hazard
analysis. Id. at 165:15-166:1. Mr. Burnett testified that Ford has not located any such documents
from JCI. Id. at 166:3-17.
Mr. Burnett stated JCI was responsible for its portion of the design and testing of the seat
pivot hinge pin. Id. at 167:3-19. Ford has no testing in its record from JCI related solely to
evaluating the seat pivot hinge pin. Id. at 167:20-168:2. Mr. Burnett did not believe JCI furnished
computerized simulations regarding the 1997-2002 Ford Expedition as it relates to far side impacts,
and Mr. Burnett had no record of JCI testing to see if a shearing load could cause the seatback hinge
pivot pin to separate on the 1997-2002 Ford Expedition. Id at 168:23-170:23.
Although the issue is a close one, having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to
Plaintiffs, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment regarding Plaintiffs’ design defect claim should be denied. Defendant’s objections are
without merit. The Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as
the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Johnson Controls’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 32)
is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is further
5

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ manufacturing defect claim is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
It is SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 31st day of May, 2012.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6