Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT—N.D. Tex.: Court dismisses design defect claim, but allows manufacturing defect, negligence claims to proceed, (Apr 17, 2026)

By Molly Platnick

The plaintiff failed to identify a specific alternative design.

A federal district court in Texas granted in part and denied in part an off-road vehicle manufacturer’s motion to dismiss in a case brought on behalf of a minor who was injured when his vehicle’s steering mechanism failed. The court dismissed the design defect and implied warranty claims but denied the motion as to the manufacturing and negligence claims. The plaintiff could not state a design defect claim because he did not identify a specific alternative design for the vehicle that would have prevented the minor’s injuries. However, a recall notice issued by the manufacturer and the injury itself were enough evidence to plausibly plead a manufacturing defect. In addition, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a negligence claim that survived the motion to dismiss (Fuller v. Polaris, No. 3:25-CV-2094-B (N.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff filed this action as next friend of a minor. The minor was injured in 2023 when the steering mechanism of the “youth off-road vehicle” he was driving allegedly failed, causing the vehicle to flip over. Several months later, the vehicle’s manufacturer issued a safety recall notice on several of its products, including the one the minor was driving when he was injured. The notice identified a “potential steering rack defect, which could result in a loss of vehicle steering control during operation.”

The plaintiff brought this case against manufacturer in August 2025. In his amended complaint, he asserted design defect, manufacturing defect, implied warranty, and negligence claims. In December 2025, the manufacturer filed the instant 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

No specific alternative design. The court first granted the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss the design defect claim. A plaintiff pleading design defect must show (1) the product was defectively designed so as to render it unreasonably dangerous, (2) a safer alternative design existed, and (3) the defect was the cause of plaintiff’s injuries. To satisfy the second element at the motion to dismiss stage, it is not enough for a plaintiff to show there is an alternative design available; he “must identify [a design] that “would have been economically and scientifically feasible.”

The court found the plaintiff failed to meet that burden. He alleged there was a safer economically and technologically feasible design but did not identify a specific design. The court dismissed this claim as a “bare recital of elements” that failed to state a claim.

Recall notice and injury. Next, the court denied the motion to dismiss the manufacturing defect claim. The elements of a manufacturing defect under Texas law are: (1) the product deviates in its construction or quality from specifications or planned output, and (2) in a manner that renders it unreasonably dangerous. Case law holds recall letters may show a defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control, if there is independent evidence the product had a defect.

Here, the manufacturer issued a recall notice on the youth off-road vehicle because of a steering mechanism failure and the plaintiff alleged the minor was injured because the vehicle’s steering mechanism failed. The court considered the allegations “independent evidence,” which coupled with the notice, “suggested both the existence of a manufacturing defect…and that this defect was present in the vehicle at the time of [the] accident.”

Negligence. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the negligence claim. A plaintiff meets the elements of a product defect negligence claim if he shows: (1) defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in the design, manufacturing, or marketing of the product, and (2) defendant’s breach proximately caused the alleged injuries.

Here, the plaintiff argued the defective steering rack showed the vehicle manufacturer’s failure to exercise ordinary care, and the minor’s injuries were “due directly to the vehicle’s sudden steering mechanism.” The court was persuaded this was enough to survive a motion to dismiss because the plaintiff was not required to prove specific negligent acts. At this stage, a plaintiff need only show: (1) the injury is of type that would not have occurred in the absence of negligence, and (2) the product was under the manufacturer’s sole management/control and was not subsequently modified. The plaintiff met this lower threshold for negligence, as “newly manufactured off-road vehicles do not normally have steering mechanism failures in the absence of negligence” and there was no evidence the vehicle was altered after leaving the manufacturer.

No pre-suit notice. Finally, granting the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss the implied warranty claim, the court found the plaintiff did not file pre-suit notice, which is condition precedent for all products liability implied warranty claims. The plaintiff did not specify whether he intended to pursue a merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose claim, the two types of implied products liability warranty claims Texas law recognizes. However, this omission was immaterial because a pre-suit notice is a condition precedent to either type of implied warranty claim. Because the plaintiff did not provide the vehicle manufacturer a pre-suit notice, the court dismissed his implied warranty claim.

The case is No. 3:25-CV-2094-B.

Judge: Boyle, J.

Attorneys: William T. Hughey (Law Office of William T. Hughey) for Gershom Fuller. David T. McDowell (McDowell Hetherington LLP) for Polaris Industries Inc.

Companies: Polaris Industries Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews SportsandRecEquipmentNews MotorVehiclesNews TexasNews