General Motors Corp. v. Sanchez

997 S.W.2d 584 (1999)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

General Motors Corp. v. Sanchez

Supreme Court of Texas
997 S.W.2d 584 (1999)

  • Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Play video


Lee Sanchez, Jr. bled to death from injuries sustained when his Chevy pickup truck, manufactured by General Motors Corporation (GM) (defendant), rolled backward and pinned him between the open driver’s side door and a gate. Sanchez’s family, his wife, and his estate (plaintiffs) brought a products-liability claim against GM, alleging a defect in the truck’s transmission. Although there were no witnesses to the accident, the plaintiffs theorized that Sanchez had exited the truck to close the gate, leaving the truck door open and the engine running, and had mistakenly shifted into an intermediate position between gears. As he walked toward the gate, the gear shift slipped into reverse, and the truck rolled backward into Sanchez. The truck's owner's manual included a discussion of safety measures to take upon exiting the truck to ensure that the truck would not move when parked. These safety measures included setting the parking brake, placing the truck completely in park, turning off the engine, removing the key from the ignition, and pulling down on the gear shift to ensure that the parking gear was fully engaged. Although Sanchez's father testified at trial that Sanchez probably read the owner's manual, the plaintiffs' experts all agreed that Sanchez had not performed any of these recommended safety measures before exiting the truck. The experts further agreed that if Sanchez had performed any one of the safety measures, the accident would not have occurred. The jury found that the transmission was defective and that GM had failed to give an adequate warning, but that Sanchez was 50 percent responsible for the accident. The trial court disregarded the finding that Sanchez was partially responsible and awarded the plaintiffs $8.5 million in damages. The court of appeals affirmed. GM appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. On appeal GM argued, among other things, that the trial court improperly refused to apply comparative responsibility to reduce the plaintiffs' recovery. The plaintiffs contended that comparative responsibility did not apply in their action based on strict products liability because Sanchez's negligence was nothing more than the failure to discover or guard against a product defect.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Gonzales, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership