## Facts

- Robert Gish, a long-haul truck driver, used an open-top hopper trailer manufactured by Timpte Industries, Inc. and Timpte Inc.
- The trailer had ladders and observation platforms at the front and rear, and a top rail described as a five-inch aluminum strip roughly ten feet above the ground.
- While loading fertilizer at a plant, Gish attempted to lower a downspout using a rope but could not.
- Gish climbed the trailer ladder, stepped onto the narrow top rail, tried to walk along it, and fell, suffering serious injuries.
- The trailer displayed warnings instructing users to maintain three-point contact and not to use the ladder to climb into or onto the trailer.
- Gish asserted a design-defect claim based on (1) a narrow, smooth top rail that was allegedly too slippery and (2) the top two ladder rungs that allegedly enabled access to the top rail.
- Gish’s expert proposed removing the top two ladder rungs to prevent stepping onto the rail and widening the rail to create a safer walkway.
- Timpte sought no-evidence summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i); the trial court granted it, the court of appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court of Texas granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Gish produced more than a scintilla of evidence that the trailer was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous.
2. Whether Gish produced more than a scintilla of evidence of a feasible safer alternative design and producing-cause causation.
3. Whether the no-evidence motion and record supported summary judgment under Rule 166a(i).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s no-evidence summary judgment for Timpte.
- The court held Gish presented no more than a scintilla of evidence that any design feature rendered the trailer unreasonably dangerous.
- The court found the risk of balancing and walking on a narrow rail ten feet above ground was obvious to an ordinary user, particularly given express warnings not to climb onto the trailer from the ladder.
- The court concluded Gish failed to present sufficient evidence of a safer alternative design that was feasible and would have reduced risk without substantially impairing utility.
- With no evidence of defect and safer alternative design, the court also found insufficient evidence that an alleged defect was a producing cause of Gish’s injuries.
- The court held the Rule 166a(i) motion properly identified challenged elements and that the evidence offered was too weak to rise above suspicion.

## Legal Principles

- A Texas design-defect plaintiff must prove: (1) a design defect, (2) that renders the product unreasonably dangerous, and (3) producing cause.
- The plaintiff must prove a safer alternative design that would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk without substantially impairing utility and that was economically and technologically feasible when the product was made.
- Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i), a no-evidence summary judgment is proper when the motion challenges specific elements and the nonmovant fails to produce more than a scintilla of probative evidence.
- An obvious risk apparent to an ordinary user, combined with product misuse contrary to clear warnings, may defeat proof that a product is unreasonably dangerous due to its design.
- A manufacturer is not required to redesign a product to eliminate injuries caused by foreseeable but clearly warned-against misuse, absent evidence of a feasible safer alternative design meeting statutory and common-law requirements.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Texas reinstated no-evidence summary judgment for the trailer manufacturer because the plaintiff failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence that the trailer’s ladder or top rail was defectively designed, failed to prove a feasible safer alternative design, and failed to show producing-cause causation where the injury resulted from climbing onto and walking along an obviously hazardous rail contrary to explicit warnings.


Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009)