## Facts

- Lee Sanchez, Jr. died in a ranch accident involving a 1990 Chevrolet pickup truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation and sold by a dealership.
- No eyewitnesses observed the incident; the case turned on circumstantial evidence about how the truck moved and how Sanchez was positioned.
- Sanchez was found pinned against an open corral gate in the angle between the open driver-side door and the truck’s cab; he died from blood loss caused by a severe arm laceration.
- The plaintiffs alleged Sanchez stopped to close a gate, exited the truck, and unintentionally placed the column shifter into an intermediate position between Park and Reverse (“perched”/“hydraulic neutral”).
- Plaintiffs contended the transmission then slipped into Reverse, causing the truck to roll backward and crush Sanchez against the gate.
- The owner’s manual recommended several precautions when exiting a vehicle, including setting the parking brake, placing the transmission fully in Park, turning off the engine, removing the key, and pulling down on the shift lever to confirm Park engagement.
- Plaintiffs’ experts agreed Sanchez did not take any of these precautions and that taking any one of them would have prevented the accident.
- The plaintiffs sued for negligence, strict products liability (design defect and failure to warn), and gross negligence, alleging a defect in the transmission and related linkage and inadequate warnings regarding mis-shift and roll-back risks.
- The jury found design defect and inadequate warning, found Sanchez 50% responsible, and found gross negligence; the trial court disregarded the comparative-responsibility finding and entered judgment without reducing damages.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding Sanchez’s conduct was merely a failure to discover or guard against a defect and therefore not comparable in a strict-liability case.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas comparative responsibility applies to reduce recovery in a strict-liability design-defect case when the plaintiff’s conduct goes beyond merely failing to discover or guard against a defect.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a finding of gross negligence and an award of punitive damages against the manufacturer.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals.
- Comparative responsibility applies in strict products liability when the plaintiff’s negligence is something other than merely failing to discover or guard against the defect.
- Sanchez’s conduct (failing to secure the vehicle and failing to follow basic exit precautions) constituted negligence independent of defect discovery and could be compared.
- The plaintiffs’ actual damages had to be reduced by 50% consistent with the jury’s comparative-responsibility allocation.
- The punitive-damages award was reversed because the evidence was legally insufficient to support gross negligence.
- Judgment was rendered for actual damages as reduced by comparative responsibility, with no punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Comparative responsibility applies in strict products-liability cases when the plaintiff’s negligent conduct is independent of, and more than, a failure to discover or guard against a product defect.
- A plaintiff is not charged in strict liability with a duty to inspect for or detect defects, but must still exercise ordinary care in use and in taking basic safety precautions.
- When a jury finds plaintiff negligence that is a distinct causal contributor (e.g., failing to secure a vehicle before exiting), the plaintiff’s damages must be reduced by the assigned percentage of responsibility.
- Punitive damages for gross negligence require legally sufficient proof of (1) an extreme degree of risk and (2) the defendant’s actual awareness of the risk coupled with conscious indifference; evidence supporting defect or ordinary negligence does not necessarily meet this standard.

## Conclusion

The court held that strict-liability claims do not bar comparative-responsibility reductions when a plaintiff’s independent negligence contributes to the injury, and it vacated punitive damages because the proof did not meet Texas’s gross-negligence standard.


Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1999)