Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Black

I dissent. To be held negligent, Sears had to have reason to anticipate the injury to the Blacks as a foreseeable consequence of the alleged design defect. I hold that there is no such evidence.

The Texas Supreme Court, in Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bigham, 90 Tex. 223, 38 S.W. 162 (1896), declared:

[I]t ought not to be deemed negligent to do or to fail to do an act when it was not anticipated, and should not have been anticipated, that it would result in injury to any one. To require this is to demand of human nature a degree of care incompatible with the prosecutions of the ordinary avocations of…