In every case, tire manufacturers move for summary judgment against Plaintiff’s case on the supposed ground that Plaintiff’s experts’ opinions are not admissible under Daubert. While thousands of these cases have been quietly settled, others have resulted in jury verdicts being reversed by appellate courts taking away plaintiff’s verdicts. Just as plentiful, however, are trial court decisions ruling that Plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions are admissible.
Below are several reported decisions where courts ruled that the plaintiff’s experts’ testimony met Daubert and was admissible.
In Bloomer v Bridgestone/Firestone N.A. Tire, LLC, 2008 WL 934365 (D. Neb., Mar. 31, 2008), the Court denied Firestone’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert David Osborne, concluding: “The plaintiffs’ showing establishes the expert is qualified to testify to the opinions contained in his report and the opinion satisfies Daubert’s reliability requirements. The sufficiency of the opinions and the weight to be accorded them are matters for the jury to determine. The court will properly limit the expert’s testimony to matters that would be helpful to the jury and are within the expert’s area of expertise.”
In Tungate v. Bridgestone/Firestone Corp, 2004 WL 771191 (S.D.Ind., Mar. 26, 2004), the Court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant in a case alleging a design defect caused and explosion and consequent injuries during Plaintiff’s servicing of Defendant’ tire. After the tire exploded during servicing, “[l]ater examination of the tire showed what is known as a “zipper” tear, in which the steel wires on the inner side wall of the tire broke in a line (hence “zipper”), causing an explosive release of air from inside the tire.” Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Harry Baumgartner, opined that a design defect caused the explosion. Firestone moved to exclude him under Daubert. The Court found the “relevance” prong, met, and as to “reliability,” the Court noted that “Baumgardner’s testimony has been admitted in several score cases involving allegations of tire defects, and in six trials about zipper tears.” This court found that “Baumgardner is qualified to testify about the subjects of his proposed testimony under the principles of Daubert and Kumho Tire,” and concluded that “Baumgardner’s testimony about the OSHA-recommended safety measures and devices is based on his extensive experience and knowledge about tire failures and the demands of tire repair and maintenance, as well as common sense.”
In Person v. Ford Motor Co. & Continental Tire NA, Inc., 2011 WL 10501606 (N.D.Miss., Oct. 13, 2011), the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, scheduled Daubert hearings concerning their motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ two experts, and gave preliminary thoughts. First, as to Plaintiffs’ expert, Murat Okcuoglu, who “contends that the 2002 Ford Explorer was defectively designed because it was not equipped with an ESC system, the Court noted that Daubert requires a methodology to be testable, but that Defendants’ argument that Okcuoglu tested a different model year Explorer did not render his theory untestable. Specifically, the Court noted “the court is tentatively inclined to conclude that defendants’ objections to Okcuoglu’s testimony contain arguments that should properly be made to the jury regarding the weight to be given to his testimony, rather than a basis for excluding that testimony outright.” The Court reasoned, “[t]his argument regarding the probative value of Okcuoglu’s testing is, however, one that should be made at trial and may not serve as a basis for preventing plaintiffs from even having the opportunity to make their case.” “[A]t this juncture, this court is tentatively inclined to conclude that, as with Okcuoglu’s testimony, plaintiffs have submitted sufficiently reliable proof for a jury to consider it. The court will therefore tentatively deny the Daubert motion to strike Darr’s testimony at this juncture, but defendants will have an opportunity to renew their motion after the Daubert hearing. Concerning the qualifications of Plaintiff’s tire expert, Brian Darr, P.E., the Court found that “he has thirteen years’ experience designing and evaluating failed tires and is sufficiently qualified to offer expert testimony.” Concerning reliability, the Court concluded that a formal Daubert hearing was necessary before it ruled.
In Trenado v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 2010 WL 9546053 (S.D.Tex., Jan. 26, 2010), the Magistrate Judge recommended that Cooper’s motion for partial summary judgment concerning the plaintiff’s design defect, negligence and punitive damages claims be denied. In doing so, the Magistrate Judge found that the affidavit of Plaintiff’s expert, Troy Cottles, met the summary judgment threshold on these issues. However, Texas’ provides a manufacturer with an affirmative defense of compliance with a federal standard. When the Plaintiff moved for summary judgment against this affirmative defense, the Magistrate Judge denied the same, making it a question of fact for the jury.
In Garcia v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., 2004 WL 5631588 (M.D.Fla., Mar. 12, 2004), the Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts Mr. Alan Milner, Mr. Dennis Carlson, Jr., Mr. R.J. Grogan, Jr., Mr. William Max Nonnamaker, noting that the motions “go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the testimony.”
In Henderson v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires NA, Ltd., 2013 WL 6145647 (M.D.Ala., Nov. 21, 2013), the Court denied a motion for summary judgment, and denied the motion to limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert William Woehrle. In doing so, the Court concluded that “Mr. Woehrle has the relevant knowledge, skill, experience, and training to testify as an expert,” yet found that “in addition to conducting a detailed visual, tactile, and diagnostic examination of the subject tire prior to rendering his opinions, Mr. Woehrle also conducted a differential diagnosis whereby he eliminated other potential causes of failure based on the absence or presence of other certain signs on the subject tire. Such a process of elimination is an appropriate and accepted methodology.”
In Jones v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires NA, Ltd., 871 So.2d 899 (Fla.Ct.App. [3d Dist], Nov. 12, 2003), the Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Richard Baumgartner concerning an explosion during a tire servicing procedure, and therefore, reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Written by*
Mikal C. Watts
WATTS GUERRA LLP
4 Dominion Drive, Bldg. 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone (210) 447-0500
Email mcwatts@guerrallp.com
*This information is provided to supply relevant information concerning a tire defect lawsuit, and should not be received as legal advice. Legal advice is only given to persons or entities with whom Watts Guerra LLP has established an attorney-client relationship. If you have another lawyer in a tire defect lawsuit, you should consult with your own attorney, and rely upon his or her advice, rather than the information contained herein.
© Watts Guerra LLP 2015
