Legal Opinion

Hoover and Son v. OM Franklin Serum Company

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1969No. B-1426PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REAVLEY, Justice.

Antibiotic serum produced by defendant precipitated death or injury to plaintiffs’ calves. Upon jury findings that the serum used was unfit and that the harm to the animals was not the result of their abnormal reaction to the product, the trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded because a special issue had inquired as to “producing cause” rather than “proximate cause” and had thus failed to require the element of foreseeability. 437 S.W.2d 613. We hold that the case was properly and fully submitted to the jury, and we…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Griggs Canning Co. v. JoseyTexas Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Cudmore v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1965
  3. Community Blood Bank, Inc. v. RussellSupreme Court of Florida · 1967
  4. Burrus Feed Mills, Inc. v. ReederCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965
  5. OM Franklin Serum Company v. CA Hoover & SonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1969

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Rourke v. GarzaTexas Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Reyes v. Wyeth LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
  3. General Motors Corp. v. HopkinsTexas Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Holly Shipp v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
  5. Crocker v. Winthrop Laboratories, Division of Sterling Drug, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1974

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API