Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court issued a decision wherein it evaluated whether Ford Motor Company was entitled to repose—protection from products-liability action based on the date of the product’s sale. In Ford Motor Co. v. Parks[1], the Court provided clarity as to what a defendant is—and is not—required to prove to be entitled to repose.
Parks brought products liability claims against Ford in 2016 after her husband was injured when his Ford Explorer rolled over. Ford provided evidence indicating that it “released” the Explorer to the dealership in May of 2000 and that the Explorer was then sold by the dealership to a retail customer within the same month[2]. The evidence further indicated that release of the product does not necessarily mean that the dealership furnished payment for the product based on frequently used financing plans. The statute of repose requires that products-liability claims be brought within 15 years of the sale of the product. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ford based on the evidence that the Explorer was sold or released in 2000, and the product-liability action was not brought until 2016, after the statutory period.
The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ford on the grounds that Ford “did not prove the exact date the dealer paid for the vehicle in full.”[3] Therefore, the court of appeals concluded that Ford did not sufficiently prove the date of the sale of the Explorer for the purposes of the statute of repose.
The Texas Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeals and rendered judgment in favor of Ford. Specifically, the Court disagreed with the court of appeals’ interpretation of what is required to prove that a sale occurred outside the statutory period. The Texas Supreme Court demonstrated that under both the UCC and pursuant to common law, sales can, and frequently do, occur before payment is received. It followed, then, that the court of appeals erred by requiring Ford to prove the date the dealership paid for the Explorer, as receipt of payment is not necessary to accomplish the sale of a good. The Court also noted that the purpose of the statute of repose— “to relieve defendants of the burden of defending claims” where evidence is likely lost due to the passage of time—is defeated if defendants are required to provide exact evidence as to the date of sale.[4] The Court further emphasized the Fifth Circuit’s observation in Camacho[5] that the way a purchase is financed is not relevant to whether a sale occurred. Evidence provided by Ford was sufficient to demonstrate that the sale of the Explorer occurred outside of the statutory period created by the statute of repose.
This Texas Supreme Court holding is important for products liability defense as a defendant will not be required to prove an exact date of sale to be entitled to protection against suit. Rather, a defendant must prove only “that the sale must have occurred outside the statutory period.”[6]
[1] Ford Motor Co. v. Parks, 691 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. 2024)
[2] Id. at *1
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at *16
[5] Camacho v. Ford Motor Co., 993 F.3d 308 at 313 (5th Cir. 2021)
[6] Parks, 691 S.W.3d 475 at *16
