Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Leslie Williams, a jeweler who suffers from scleroderma, sued Thunderbird Supply Co. and others for strict product liability based on the company’s silica-containing product Williams used at work. Williams acknowledged that Thunderbird, a New Mexico corporation, did not have a regular place of business in Texas or a foreign corporation doing business in Texas. He did not allege that he was exposed to Thunderbird’s product in Texas. Instead, Williams alleged that “all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred [Jefferson County].” Williams said he traced a product called Tripoli that he used at his 1977-78 job to Thunderbird. A product called “A-Tripoli,” containing up to 80 percent silica was listed as one of the products still distributed by the same distributor that supplied his employer and was still attributed to Thunderbird, thus satisfying the stream of commerce test for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Thunderbird filed a special appearance. A Thunderbird officer testified by affidavit that it sells most of its supplies, tools, findings and stones in New Mexico and Arizona, but some of its products are sold by mail order. Mail order customers may be large retailers or individual hobbyists; each type of customer is serviced by a separate arm of Thunderbird’s operations. The officer stated it had not sold any products to Williams or his employer in the previous five years, that its silica-containing polishing compounds were not sold to Texas residents via e-mail before 2002, and less than 2 percent of Thunderbird’s overall sales were in Texas. The trial court denied the special appearance. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. The court first holds that Williams’ allegations in his petition were good enough to bring Thunderbird within the long-arm statute, and that Thunderbird then assumed the burden to negate the basis of personal jurisdiction. The court thus reviews whether Thunderbird had minimum contacts with Texas to justify exercising personal jurisdiction over the company. The court reviews the facts alleged by Williams and the ones alleged by Thunderbird. The court finds that, at most, the evidence establishes that a silica-containing product introduced into the stream of commerce by Thunderbird eventually found its way to a Texas resident allegedly injured by silica exposure. There is no evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Thunderbird had a reasonable expectation that the product would enter Texas. The court adds that there is no evidence of Thunderbird’s efforts to market its product in Texas, that it made any effort to serve a market for its products in Texas, or that it was even aware that a third party like Williams’ employer’s supplier marketed Thunderbird’s products in Texas. OPINION:McKeithen, C.J.; McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.