Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—BABY PRODUCTS—W.D. Tex.: Graco faces trial over infant’s death in motorized swing, (Nov 13, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

Triable issues existed as to whether the swing’s alleged design and warning defects contributed to the infant’s death and whether feasible safer alternative designs existed.

In an action brought against a children’s product manufacturer by a couple whose infant died while using a motorized swing, a federal district court in Texas denied the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment. The court found genuine disputes concerning the alleged design and marketing defects, the availability of safer alternative designs, and negligence. It also largely permitted the parties’ expert testimony, excluding only opinions that speculated about the parents’ subjective thoughts or knowledge (Krieg v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., No. 6:24-CV-171-CRW (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2026)).

Background. On July 4, 2022, a couple placed their nine-month-old son in a Graco-manufactured DuetConnect motorized swing. Later that night, they found him partially hanging from the swing and unresponsive. He died from his injuries. The swing had a five-point harness, and its manual and product labels warned against leaving children unattended, using the swing for sleep, and failing to use and properly adjust the restraints. The parents routinely used the swing for the infant’s naps but secured him with the lap belt only, without using the shoulder straps. The father had assembled and periodically disassembled the swing for cleaning.

The parents sued the manufacturer, Graco Children’s Products, Inc., alleging design defect, marketing defect, and negligence. They contended that the seatback incline, cantilever frame, and restraint system allowed infants to move into dangerous positions that could cause asphyxia. They proposed alternative designs involving a firmer, flatter seat surface, an A-frame structure, and an improved five-point harness. They also alleged that Graco’s instructions and warnings inadequately communicated the product’s risks. The manufacturer argued that the parents’ failure to use the shoulder straps, supervise the infant, properly connect certain components, and follow the instructions contributed to the death. Graco moved for summary judgment and both sides sought to exclude expert testimony.

Design and marketing defects. Graco argued that the parents lacked evidence that either the alleged design defect or the alleged warning defect was a producing cause of the infant’s death. It maintained that the swing was not defective when used as designed and that the failure to use the shoulder straps caused the incident. The court rejected summary judgment on the marketing-defect claim. Under Texas law, an adequate-warning presumption generally permits a claimant to establish that an adequate warning would have been followed. The presumption disappears when evidence shows that the claimant ignored a warning, even if it was inadequate. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 357–59 (Tex. 1993). Here, neither parent recalled whether they had read the relevant warnings or instructions. Because the evidence did not establish that they had ignored them, the presumption remained applicable. The adequacy of the warnings and whether an adequate warning would have prevented the death therefore presented questions for the jury. Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton, 372 S.W.3d 140, 170 (Tex. 2012). The court also found a triable issue on design-defect causation. Although Graco attributed the death to the failure to use the shoulder straps, an injury may have more than one producing cause. Thus, the alleged failure to use the harness did not eliminate the possibility that the swing’s seatback incline and cantilever design also contributed to the death. Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 45 (Tex. 2007).

Safer alternative design. Graco argued that the proposed alternatives were either different products, inadequately tested, or economically infeasible. The parents proposed a seatback incline of ten degrees or less, an A-frame structure, and a better restraint system, to which the manufacturer responded that a flatter surface would effectively turn the swing into a playmat or crib. However, an earlier version of the DuetConnect could recline to a lower seatback angle, and Graco had not negated the possibility of incorporating that feature into a swing. Moreover, Texas law does not require an alternative design to have been actually built and tested if qualified expert testimony reasonably supports its practical feasibility. Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak, 462 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. 2015). The record also contained evidence of A-frame swings and swings with lower seat inclines in the industry. Although use by other manufacturers alone did not establish economic feasibility, it provided some supporting evidence. Expert testimony that an A-frame design would not be expensive and that a firmer surface would not significantly increase costs further supported the claim. The court therefore found genuine factual disputes concerning technological and economic feasibility under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.005.

Negligence. Graco also sought summary judgment on negligence. The parents acknowledged that their negligence claim was subsumed within their product-liability claims. Because the court found sufficient evidence to preserve those claims, it likewise found triable issues on negligence and denied summary judgment.

Expert testimony. The court generally denied the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony, finding that the challenged opinions had sufficient factual foundations and relied on methods that could be tested through cross-examination. It permitted testimony addressing the swing’s design, restraint system, assembly instructions, warnings, and alternative causation theories. However, it barred the parents’ human-factors expert from speculating about their subjective thoughts or knowledge, including whether the father had forgotten how to use the shoulder straps or did not know how to thread them through the seatback. The expert could still offer general opinions that the instructions might lead consumers to misuse the restraint system. The court also rejected Graco’s challenges to the parents’ biomechanical and engineering experts, finding their opinions concerning the swing’s design, alleged hazards, and proposed alternatives sufficiently relevant and reliable under Rule 702. Accordingly, only the human-factors expert’s testimony was limited and all other motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.

The case is No. 6:24-CV-171-CRW.

Judge: Wolfe, C.

Attorneys: Francisco Guerra, IV (Guerra LLP) for Justin Krieg. Jennifer Mauer Lee (Fee, Smith & Sharp, LLP) for Graco Children's Products, Inc.

Companies: Graco Children's Products, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory DesignManufacturingNews BabyProductsNews CausationNews ExpertEvidenceNews WarningsNews TexasNews GCNNews