Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mary Lynn Beaty alleged that she was injured when sliding glass entry doors at a Kroger store struck her and knocked her to the ground. She sued The Kroger Co. and Kroger Texas L.P. in a diversity action.
Kroger moved under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.004 to designate Stanley Access Technologies, LLC, as a responsible third party. Kroger asserted that Stanley manufactured and supplied the automatic doors and caused or contributed to Beaty’s injuries.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not grant or deny the requested designation. Instead, it ordered Kroger to file an amended motion within 14 days because its existing allegations did not satisfy Texas’s fair-notice pleading standard. Although the motion appeared timely, its assertion that Stanley’s negligence created the dangerous condition did not identify sufficient facts showing what conduct or cause of action could make Stanley responsible.
The court explained that Kroger had not alleged facts suggesting a marketing, design, or manufacturing defect, or that Stanley failed to exercise ordinary care in designing or producing the doors. Because § 33.004(g) permits denial for deficient allegations only after the defendant has received an opportunity to replead, the court allowed amendment and warned that failure to cure the defects would result in denial.
Key Takeaways
- A motion to designate a responsible third party must allege enough facts to give fair notice of the proposed third party’s alleged responsibility.
- An objection at the designation stage concerns the sufficiency of the allegations, not whether evidence already proves the third party’s fault.
- When the initial allegations are deficient, Texas law requires an opportunity to replead before the court denies designation on that ground.
Why It Matters
The decision shows that identifying a product’s manufacturer and broadly alleging negligence may not be enough to place that manufacturer on the verdict form as a responsible third party. Defendants should identify the alleged defect, negligent conduct, or other legal basis connecting the proposed third party to the plaintiff’s injury.
The ruling also preserves the distinction between designation and liability: designation may permit evidence and allocation of fault at trial, but it does not itself impose liability on the designated person.