Longview product injuries happen around the oilfield equipment, industrial machinery, power tools, and chemical containers that the city’s industrial base puts into people’s hands every day, on the job and at home. The people hurt by them are taken to CHRISTUS Good Shepherd Medical Center on East Marshall Avenue or Longview Regional Medical Center on North Fourth Street. When the product failed at work, the employer’s incident report and any OSHA inspection are the first written record; when it failed on the road, the Longview Police Department or the Gregg County Sheriff’s Office writes the crash report. A Gregg County product suit is filed with the Gregg County District Clerk at 101 East Methvin Street and heard in the 124th, 188th, or 307th District Court, or in the Eastern District of Texas, which sits in Tyler and Marshall. Trey Morris Injury Lawyers takes custody of the product itself, unrepaired and in the condition it was in when it failed. We send preservation letters once the facts give us an honest basis for one, because moving as early as the law permits gives us the best chance to keep and gather the evidence a product case depends on. Those letters ask the manufacturer, the seller, and any employer involved to keep the design and testing files, prior complaints about the same product, purchase records, and the maintenance records for the equipment, which show what the defect was, whether the maker knew about it, and that nothing else caused the failure.
The law that governs the claim is Texas law, and it reads the same in Gregg County as anywhere in the state. A Longview product-injury claim is a two-year filing under CPRC Section 16.003, and a plaintiff found 51% or more at fault under CPRC Section 33.001 recovers nothing. Trey Morris Injury Lawyers preserves the product under CPRC Chapter 82 in the condition it was in when it caused the injury.
Texas Product Liability Law: Three Theories of Recovery
Texas product liability law does not follow the strict liability framework used in many states. Texas grounds these claims in negligence, breach of warranty, and the statutory rules in CPRC Chapter 82. Understanding which theory applies to your situation shapes the entire case strategy.
design defect
A product deficiency where the product’s blueprint or specifications made it unreasonably dangerous as designed. Every unit of that product shares the same flaw.
risk-utility test
A balancing analysis used to evaluate design defect claims. Courts weigh the product’s utility against the risks it creates and ask whether a reasonable alternative design would have been safer without impairing usefulness.
A design defect claim requires showing the product was unreasonably dangerous as designed. Texas uses a risk-utility test to evaluate this. The plaintiff must show a safer alternative design existed and was economically and technically feasible. A car roof that collapses under normal rollover forces, or oilfield pressure equipment designed without adequate relief valves, are examples of design defects.
manufacturing defect
A flaw that occurs during production of one specific unit, causing it to differ from what the manufacturer intended. The design itself may be sound. This particular product was built wrong.
A manufacturing defect claim focuses on a deviation from the intended design. The product came off the line wrong. This can happen with tires cured improperly, fasteners installed with wrong torque specifications, or industrial equipment assembled with substandard materials. The defect exists in that unit, not in the design across all units.
failure to warn
Also called a marketing defect. A claim that the product lacked adequate instructions or safety warnings, making it unreasonably dangerous for foreseeable uses.
A failure to warn claim targets the information provided with the product. If a chemical product lacks hazard warnings required for safe handling, or a piece of machinery ships without safety guards and instructions for preventing entanglement, the seller may be liable for injuries that adequate warnings would have prevented.
In Longview and East Texas, these claims frequently involve oilfield equipment, industrial machinery, power tools, and chemical containers. The local industrial base creates regular exposure to heavy-duty equipment where defects cause serious injuries.
The theory that applies determines what evidence and experts the case needs and how the timeline works. Learn more about our broader personal injury practice in Longview.
The Innocent Seller Defense Under CPRC Chapter 82
Texas CPRC Section 82.003 generally shields sellers who did not manufacture the product from product liability claims. This is the innocent seller defense. If you bought an industrial tool from a local supply house and the tool was defective, the supply house can often point the lawsuit back to the manufacturer.
The defense has six exceptions. A seller loses the protection if the seller knew about the specific defect before the sale. It also fails if the seller modified the product and that modification caused the harm. Sellers who exercised substantial control over design or manufacturing are not protected. Sellers who failed to provide adequate warnings they had a duty to give also lose the defense. False express warranties strip the protection as well. The final exception: the manufacturer is insolvent or not subject to Texas jurisdiction.
That last exception matters in Longview’s industrial supply context. Equipment imported from overseas manufacturers, or products from companies that have since dissolved, may leave only the seller in reach. When the manufacturer cannot be found or cannot pay, the exception analysis determines whether any recovery is possible at all. Identifying the manufacturer, confirming its solvency, and determining its jurisdictional exposure is the foundation for knowing who can be sued.
Proportionate Responsibility in Multi-Party Product Cases
Proportionate responsibility
Texas’s fault allocation system under CPRC Chapter 33. Each party’s percentage of fault is determined by the jury, and recovery is reduced accordingly. A plaintiff at 51% or more recovers nothing.
Texas CPRC Chapter 33 governs fault allocation in personal injury cases, including product liability. Proportionate responsibility means the jury assigns a percentage of fault to every responsible party: the manufacturer, the distributor, the employer, the plaintiff, and any third parties.
Under Section 33.001, a plaintiff who is 50% or less responsible recovers, but their damages are reduced by their percentage. A plaintiff at exactly 50% keeps half the verdict.
Section 33.004 allows defendants to designate responsible third parties. A manufacturer can designate the employer as a responsible party, reducing the manufacturer’s share of fault. The plaintiff then has 60 days to join that third party as a defendant or accept the reduced recovery. This is a common tactic in industrial product cases where an employer’s failure to maintain or inspect equipment also contributed to the injury.
Joint and several liability under Section 33.013 applies only to defendants whose assigned fault exceeds 50%. A defendant at 30% fault pays only 30% of the judgment. A defendant at 60% fault can be forced to pay the full remaining judgment if other defendants cannot pay. In cases with multiple defendants (equipment manufacturer, rental company, parts supplier), this allocation matters enormously.
Our Longview injury team handles multi-party product cases regularly.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; each case is decided on its own facts. See our full case results.
Statute of Limitations and the 15-Year Statute of Repose
Texas product liability claims have two overlapping time limits. Both can end your right to sue, and they work differently.
The statute of limitations under CPRC Section 16.003 gives you two years to file suit. The clock starts when you were injured, or when you knew or reasonably should have known about the injury and its cause. The discovery rule applies in cases where the injury was not immediately apparent, such as latent toxic exposure from industrial chemicals or asbestos-containing materials used in Longview’s industrial facilities.
statute of repose
A hard deadline that bars claims after a set number of years from a triggering event, regardless of when the injury occurred or was discovered. Unlike a statute of limitations, it cannot be extended by the discovery rule or minority tolling in most cases.
The statute of repose under CPRC Section 16.012 is a separate and harder cutoff. No product liability claim can be brought against a manufacturer more than 15 years after the product was first sold to a consumer. This clock runs from the sale date, not the injury date. A product sold in 2009 bars claims after 2024, regardless of when the injury happened or was discovered.
The repose bar is not tolled by minority. A child injured by a defective product during the last year of the repose period faces the same cutoff as an adult. Tolling under CPRC Section 16.001 suspends the statute of limitations for minors until age 18, then starts the two-year clock. But Section 16.001 does not suspend the repose bar.
Wrongful death product claims follow the two-year statute of limitations running from the date of death under Section 16.003(b). The repose bar also applies to these claims.
The product’s original sale date controls the repose deadline. In East Texas industrial cases involving equipment with long service lives, repose can close claims that would otherwise be viable.
Exemplary Damages for Gross Negligence
exemplary damages
Texas’s term for what other states call punitive damages. Awarded on top of actual damages to punish conduct involving fraud, malice, or gross negligence. Requires clear and convincing evidence.
Texas allows exemplary damages in product cases under CPRC Chapter 41. These are not automatic. The plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the manufacturer acted with fraud, malice, or gross negligence.
Gross negligence requires two elements. The act or omission must involve an extreme degree of risk. And the defendant must have been subjectively aware of that risk but consciously chosen to proceed anyway. Ordinary negligence is not enough. The evidence must show the manufacturer knew the product was dangerous and sold it anyway, or ignored documented safety failures to cut costs.
The cap under Section 41.008 limits exemplary damages to the greater of two times economic damages plus noneconomic damages up to $750,000, or $200,000. For severe injuries with high economic damages, the two-times formula typically produces a larger number than the flat $200,000 floor.
Evidence that supports a gross negligence claim includes internal testing records showing known defects. Prior CPSC complaints or recall decisions the manufacturer failed to act on also matter. Cost-benefit memos showing deliberate decisions to avoid a safer design, and prior injury claims involving the same product, round out the record. This evidence does not always surface during initial discovery. Building it requires specific document requests and sometimes corporate depositions.
Not every defective product case supports a claim for exemplary damages.
Your Longview Injury Attorneys
Founder Trey Morris leads every injury case the firm takes.
Class Actions, MDL, and Mass Tort Litigation
MDL
Multidistrict Litigation. A federal procedural mechanism that consolidates pre-trial proceedings for related cases into one court to avoid duplicative discovery. Each plaintiff retains their individual claim and individual trial right.
When a defective product injures many consumers, litigation consolidates into a class action or an MDL. This happens when the same product (a vehicle component, a medical device, or an industrial chemical) produces similar injuries across many plaintiffs.
Class actions under FRCP Rule 23 require that the injury, the defect, and the legal claims be sufficiently uniform across all plaintiffs. Mass tort MDLs, by contrast, consolidate only pretrial proceedings. Each plaintiff in an MDL keeps their individual case and their right to an individual trial. Most MDL cases settle globally before trials occur.
The Eastern District of Texas (with courthouses in Tyler and Marshall) handles Texas product liability cases. Major national MDLs are centralized in other districts by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Longview-area plaintiffs injured by widely distributed products (automotive recalls, pharmaceutical injuries, industrial equipment defects) may already be part of an active MDL without knowing it.
Your individual claim can proceed regardless of what happens in an MDL. You can join a class or MDL settlement, opt out and pursue an individual recovery, or file independently if no consolidated proceeding exists. The right approach depends on the nature of the defect and the size of your injury.
Our team handles individual product liability cases for Longview clients.
What clients say
- ★★★★★
Trey Morris what a great experience if I ever have to suggest a lawyer's office Morris is my first choice will be suggesting to friends and family
- ★★★★★
Joe and Jaime were awesome with helping me from beginning to end.
Loved working with such a great team!
- ★★★★★
Very professional and very easy to work with throughout the whole case!
Lane and Men helped make the whole process go smonthly with no stress
- ★★★★★
Great experience overall.
Seth and Jessica were always there to help and I could tell they truly had my best interest in mind. I was overwhelmed after my incident and they walked me through every step of the way and provided a lot of relief.
- ★★★★★
I hired [Trey Morris Injury Lawyers] to represent me with my case.
Mr. Lane Robinson, Jessica, and Yadira has been with me every step of the way, making sure I received the proper care I needed to get well. They always called emailed and text to make sure I was doing OK. I would recommend the firm to anyone. They have an amazing team. I couldn’t have made a better choice. Thank you all for everything you have done for me and my family.
- ★★★★★
My husband was a client of Attorney Morris last year and we were very pleased.
The most intelligent and friendly staff that would just make you find reasons to call or stop by. Out of my many years of working with and hiring attorneys, I must say that Attorney Tre Morris and staff are just OUTSTANDING!!! If you're looking for a honest hard working attorney with a pleasant staff. Contact Attorney Morris and he's handsome too😉
Testimonials do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Evidence and Investigation in Longview Product Cases
The most important thing to do after a product injury is preserve the product. Do not use it again. Do not repair it. Do not discard it. The physical product is often the central exhibit in a product liability case. Once it is modified or destroyed, proving what was wrong with it becomes far more difficult.
Spoliation
The destruction, alteration, or loss of evidence after a party has notice of potential litigation. Courts can instruct juries to draw negative inferences from the destruction.
Spoliation can work against either party. If the manufacturer destroys testing records or design files after being put on notice of your claim, that destruction can be argued to the jury as evidence the records were damaging. If you repair or discard the product, the defense will argue you eliminated the evidence of the alleged defect.
Key evidence in a product liability case includes the product itself, the original purchase receipt, and any written warranties. Maintenance records, prior recall notices from the Consumer Product Safety Commission or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and internal quality control records are all relevant. Complaints filed by other consumers about the same product can establish the manufacturer had prior notice.
Product liability cases almost always require expert witnesses. An engineering or design expert testifies that the product deviated from applicable safety standards or that an alternative design was feasible. Without expert testimony, most product defect claims cannot survive summary judgment. Identifying and retaining the right expert early is not a formality. It is one of the most consequential decisions in the case.
In Longview’s industrial context, workplace product injuries often involve additional evidence layers. OSHA inspection reports, employer maintenance records, equipment rental agreements, and co-worker statements may all bear on both liability and the responsible party designations under Chapter 33. If the product injury happened at work, you may also have a workers’ compensation claim running alongside the product liability case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a design defect and a manufacturing defect in Texas?
Can I sue a retailer or seller for a defective product in Texas?
How long do I have to file a product liability lawsuit in Texas?
What is the 15-year statute of repose and how does it affect my claim?
What does proportionate responsibility mean in a product case with multiple defendants?
Can I recover exemplary damages if the manufacturer knew the product was dangerous?
What should I do with the defective product after I am injured?
Does Texas allow class action lawsuits for defective products?
Last updated October 7, 2026