O. M. Franklin Serum Co. v. C. A. Hoover & Son
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mid Continent Aircraft Corp. v. Curry County Spraying Service, Inc. (Tex. 1978)
- Two Rivers Company v. Curtiss Breeding Service, Division of Searle Agriculture Inc., Defendant- Hi-Pro Feeds, Inc. (5th Cir. 1980)
- Riverside Chemical Co. v. Hanson (Tex. App. 1978)
- General Motors Corp. v. Simmons (Tex. 1977)
- Mid Continent Aircraft Corp. v. Curry County Spraying Service, Inc. (Tex. App. 1977)
- Gravis v. Abbott Laboratories (Tex. App. 1970)
- FMC Corporation v. Burns (Tex. App. 1969)
- Van Wyk v. Norden Laboratories, Inc. (Iowa 1984)
- Cloud v. Kit Manufacturing Co. (Alaska 1977)
- Hartzell Propeller Company v. Alexander (Tex. App. 1972)
- Pizza Inn, Inc. v. Tiffany (Tex. App. 1970)
- Monsanto Company v. Thrasher (Tex. App. 1970)
- Freitas v. Twin City Fisherman's Cooperative Ass'n (Tex. App. 1970)
- Cova v. Harley Davidson Motor Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
- Eyerly Aircraft Co. v. Jack Killian, Individually and for and on Behalf of Jan Killian, a Minor (5th Cir. 1969)
- GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. Hall (Tex. App. 1969)
- Pittsburg Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Pittsburg v. Ponder (Tex. 1969)
- OM Franklin Serum Company v. CA Hoover & Son (Tex. App. 1969)
- Martel v. Duffy-Mott Corporation (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
- Humber v. Morton (Tex. 1968)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Hough (Tex. App. 1967)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
In McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., Tex.Sup., 416 S.W.2d 787, we adopted the rule of strict liability in tort with respect to sellers of defective products which cause physical harm to persons. The Court of Civil Appeals has held in the present case that the seller of a defective product is also subject to strict liability for damage caused to the property of the ultimate consumer. 410 S.W.2d 272. We are in agreement with this holding and accordingly disapprove the opinions in Brown v. Howard, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W.2d 752 (wr. ref. n. r. e.), and Cruz v. Ansul Chemical Co., Tex.Civ.App., 399 S.W.2d 944 (wr. ref. n. r. e.), in so far as they are inconsistent therewith. The application for writ of error is Refused, No Reversible Error. See Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.