Loading
Automotive
11 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Failure Analysis, Accident Reconstruction, Automotive Engineering, Manufacturing, Mechanical Engineering
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Texas State
Court:
A fatal tire failure on Interstate 25 near Albuquerque, New Mexico, led to the product liability litigation in Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. 2006). On June 29, 1997, Oscar Mendez, Sr. was driving a Mazda minivan with six passengers when the tread separated from the vehicle's left rear Sigma Grand Sport radial tire, which had been manufactured by Cooper Tire & Rubber Company. The minivan moved toward the shoulder and rolled several times as Mendez attempted to regain control. All six passengers were ejected, four died at the scene or shortly afterward, and the surviving occupants suffered injuries. Mendez, who was wearing a seat belt, remained inside the vehicle. A later examination found a nail hole in the tread, and the nail had penetrated completely through the tire.
The plaintiffs alleged that the tire contained a manufacturing defect when it left Cooper Tire's control. Their theory centered on hydrocarbon wax that allegedly contaminated the tire's skim stock and reduced adhesion between internal components. A jury found Cooper Tire liable, and the trial court entered judgment totaling $11,508,080. The Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso affirmed the judgment, but the Texas Supreme Court later concluded that the expert evidence supporting the manufacturing-defect theory was legally insufficient. On June 16, 2006, the court reversed the appellate judgment and rendered judgment for Cooper Tire.
Oscar Mendez, Sr. was traveling on Interstate 25 toward Albuquerque in a Mazda minivan when the tread separated from the vehicle's left rear Sigma Grand Sport radial tire. The minivan moved toward the shoulder and rolled several times as Mendez attempted to regain control. Six passengers were ejected, while Mendez remained inside because he was wearing a seat belt. Four passengers died at the scene or shortly afterward. Investigators later found a nail hole in the tire's tread, and the nail had penetrated completely through the tire.
At trial in El Paso, Texas, the plaintiffs argued that the tire contained a manufacturing defect when it left Cooper Tire's possession. Their technical theory focused on hydrocarbon wax allegedly contaminating the skim stock, the rubber compound coating the tire's steel belts, and interfering with adhesion between internal tire components. Richard Grogan, Alan Milner, and Jon Crate provided testimony addressing different parts of the tire failure and contamination theory.
Cooper Tire denied that the tire had been defectively manufactured and presented other explanations for the tread separation, including the puncture and the tire's service history. The company also alleged negligence by Mendez. The jury found that a manufacturing defect was a producing cause of the injuries and rejected the negligence claim against Mendez. The trial court ultimately entered judgment against Cooper Tire totaling $11,508,080.
Cooper Tire appealed to the Texas Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso, challenging the sufficiency of the manufacturing-defect evidence and several evidentiary and procedural rulings. The court also reviewed Cooper Tire's objections to accident-causation testimony from plaintiffs' experts Stephen Arndt and Curtis Flynn, whose analyses addressed vehicle handling and the minivan's movements after the tread separation. The appellate court upheld the admission of their testimony and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's manufacturing-defect finding.
The court separately considered Cooper Tire's argument involving Juan Herrera, whose opinion concerning the rollover and the occupants' lack of seat-belt use had been preserved in a bill of exception but excluded from the jury. The appellate court upheld that exclusion under the Texas law governing seat-belt evidence at the time and rejected Cooper Tire's remaining challenges involving expert evidence, laboratory findings, the jury charge, closing argument, and alleged jury misconduct. It affirmed the $11,508,080 judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court of Texas heard oral argument after Cooper Tire sought review of the appellate ruling. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiffs had presented legally sufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect and whether the opinions supporting the hydrocarbon-wax theory satisfied Texas Rule of Evidence 702.
The court examined Richard Grogan's tire failure opinions, Alan Milner's engineering analysis, and Jon Crate's testimony concerning polymers, wax migration, and tire adhesion. Its review addressed both the witnesses' qualifications and the methods they used to connect the physical condition of the tire to the alleged manufacturing defect. The court considered whether those opinions were supported by testing, measurements, published research, accepted scientific principles, or other objective methods.
The Texas Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs' expert proof did not reliably establish a manufacturing defect. It found Richard "Rex" Grogan's hydrocarbon-wax contamination theory insufficiently supported by testing, quantitative analysis, peer-reviewed research, general acceptance, or other scientific validation. The court also found Alan Milner's defect opinion inadequately connected to his physical observations and concluded that Jon Crate's background in chemistry and polymer science did not provide sufficiently specialized expertise in tire chemistry, wax migration, and tire-ply adhesion.
The court also considered testimony from Cooper Tire experts Harold Herzlich and Jerry Leyden concerning tire compounding and normal wax migration when evaluating the contamination theory. Without the challenged plaintiffs' expert evidence, the court found legally insufficient proof that the tire contained a manufacturing defect when it left Cooper Tire's plant. It further concluded that the tread separation itself, the tire's approximately 30,000 miles of use, the nail puncture, and efforts to exclude other possible causes did not establish the alleged defect. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and rendered judgment for Cooper Tire.
The Texas Supreme Court denied rehearing on December 1, 2006. That action left the June 2006 judgment for Cooper Tire in place. The plaintiffs' $11.5 million trial judgment therefore did not survive Supreme Court review, and the state-court litigation concluded with judgment rendered for Cooper Tire on the manufacturing-defect claim.
Supreme Court of Texas
Case Name:
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. Oscar Mendez, Jr., et al.
Tire Failure
Manufacturing Defects
Mechanical Failure
Product Failure
Product Testing
Materials Testing
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Automotive Accidents
Product Safety
A fatal tire failure on Interstate 25 near Albuquerque, New Mexico, led to the product liability litigation in Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. 2006). On June 29, 1997, Oscar Mendez, Sr. was driving a Mazda minivan with six passengers when the tread separated from the vehicle's left rear Sigma Grand Sport radial tire, which had been manufactured by Cooper Tire & Rubber Company. The minivan moved toward the shoulder and rolled several times as Mendez attempted to regain control. All six passengers were ejected, four died at the scene or shortly afterward, and the surviving occupants suffered injuries. Mendez, who was wearing a seat belt, remained inside the vehicle. A later examination found a nail hole in the tread, and the nail had penetrated completely through the tire.
The plaintiffs alleged that the tire contained a manufacturing defect when it left Cooper Tire's control. Their theory centered on hydrocarbon wax that allegedly contaminated the tire's skim stock and reduced adhesion between internal components. A jury found Cooper Tire liable, and the trial court entered judgment totaling $11,508,080. The Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso affirmed the judgment, but the Texas Supreme Court later concluded that the expert evidence supporting the manufacturing-defect theory was legally insufficient. On June 16, 2006, the court reversed the appellate judgment and rendered judgment for Cooper Tire.
Oscar Mendez, Sr. was traveling on Interstate 25 toward Albuquerque in a Mazda minivan when the tread separated from the vehicle's left rear Sigma Grand Sport radial tire. The minivan moved toward the shoulder and rolled several times as Mendez attempted to regain control. Six passengers were ejected, while Mendez remained inside because he was wearing a seat belt. Four passengers died at the scene or shortly afterward. Investigators later found a nail hole in the tire's tread, and the nail had penetrated completely through the tire.
At trial in El Paso, Texas, the plaintiffs argued that the tire contained a manufacturing defect when it left Cooper Tire's possession. Their technical theory focused on hydrocarbon wax allegedly contaminating the skim stock, the rubber compound coating the tire's steel belts, and interfering with adhesion between internal tire components. Richard Grogan, Alan Milner, and Jon Crate provided testimony addressing different parts of the tire failure and contamination theory.
Cooper Tire denied that the tire had been defectively manufactured and presented other explanations for the tread separation, including the puncture and the tire's service history. The company also alleged negligence by Mendez. The jury found that a manufacturing defect was a producing cause of the injuries and rejected the negligence claim against Mendez. The trial court ultimately entered judgment against Cooper Tire totaling $11,508,080.
Cooper Tire appealed to the Texas Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso, challenging the sufficiency of the manufacturing-defect evidence and several evidentiary and procedural rulings. The court also reviewed Cooper Tire's objections to accident-causation testimony from plaintiffs' experts Stephen Arndt and Curtis Flynn, whose analyses addressed vehicle handling and the minivan's movements after the tread separation. The appellate court upheld the admission of their testimony and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's manufacturing-defect finding.
The court separately considered Cooper Tire's argument involving Juan Herrera, whose opinion concerning the rollover and the occupants' lack of seat-belt use had been preserved in a bill of exception but excluded from the jury. The appellate court upheld that exclusion under the Texas law governing seat-belt evidence at the time and rejected Cooper Tire's remaining challenges involving expert evidence, laboratory findings, the jury charge, closing argument, and alleged jury misconduct. It affirmed the $11,508,080 judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court of Texas heard oral argument after Cooper Tire sought review of the appellate ruling. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiffs had presented legally sufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect and whether the opinions supporting the hydrocarbon-wax theory satisfied Texas Rule of Evidence 702.
The court examined Richard Grogan's tire failure opinions, Alan Milner's engineering analysis, and Jon Crate's testimony concerning polymers, wax migration, and tire adhesion. Its review addressed both the witnesses' qualifications and the methods they used to connect the physical condition of the tire to the alleged manufacturing defect. The court considered whether those opinions were supported by testing, measurements, published research, accepted scientific principles, or other objective methods.
The Texas Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs' expert proof did not reliably establish a manufacturing defect. It found Richard "Rex" Grogan's hydrocarbon-wax contamination theory insufficiently supported by testing, quantitative analysis, peer-reviewed research, general acceptance, or other scientific validation. The court also found Alan Milner's defect opinion inadequately connected to his physical observations and concluded that Jon Crate's background in chemistry and polymer science did not provide sufficiently specialized expertise in tire chemistry, wax migration, and tire-ply adhesion.
The court also considered testimony from Cooper Tire experts Harold Herzlich and Jerry Leyden concerning tire compounding and normal wax migration when evaluating the contamination theory. Without the challenged plaintiffs' expert evidence, the court found legally insufficient proof that the tire contained a manufacturing defect when it left Cooper Tire's plant. It further concluded that the tread separation itself, the tire's approximately 30,000 miles of use, the nail puncture, and efforts to exclude other possible causes did not establish the alleged defect. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and rendered judgment for Cooper Tire.
The Texas Supreme Court denied rehearing on December 1, 2006. That action left the June 2006 judgment for Cooper Tire in place. The plaintiffs' $11.5 million trial judgment therefore did not survive Supreme Court review, and the state-court litigation concluded with judgment rendered for Cooper Tire on the manufacturing-defect claim.
1. Tire Failure Analysis Expert Witness
Richard "Rex" Grogan, for the plaintiffs, had extensive experience examining tire failures and had previously worked for Dunlop Tire Company. He attributed the tread and belt separation to contamination in the tire's skim stock and relied on physical conditions he observed during his examination.
The Texas Supreme Court did not treat his general tire-failure experience as sufficient support for the specific hydrocarbon-wax contamination theory. It concluded that the theory lacked a reliable scientific foundation because the record did not show adequate testing, quantitative analysis, peer-reviewed support, general acceptance, or other objective validation.
2. Materials and Failure Analysis Engineering Expert Witness
Alan Milner, for the plaintiffs, was an engineer with education in metallurgy and materials and experience in product failure analysis. His examination included visual inspection, X-rays, fracture-surface observations, and review of other physical conditions within the tire.
Milner used those observations to support his conclusion that the tire had not bonded properly during manufacturing. The Texas Supreme Court determined that the link between his observations and the manufacturing-defect opinion was not adequately supported by measurements, testing, published research, or another demonstrated analytical method.
3. Polymer Science, Tire Compounding, and Wax Migration Expert Witnesses
Jon Crate, for the plaintiffs, had academic training in chemistry and polymer science and engineering. His testimony addressed substances detected on tire samples and whether the wax identified during testing represented manufacturing contamination rather than normal migration through tire materials.
The Texas Supreme Court concluded that his broader scientific background did not establish sufficiently specialized qualifications in tire chemistry, wax migration, and tire adhesion for the particular opinions he offered.
Harold Herzlich and Jerry Leyden, for Cooper Tire, addressed rubber chemistry, tire compounding, and the movement of wax through tire components. Their testimony included explanations for how substances detected during laboratory examination could result from materials intentionally used in tire construction rather than contamination introduced during manufacturing.
4. Accident Causation, Reconstruction, and Vehicle Dynamics Expert Witnesses
Stephen Arndt and Curtis Flynn supported the plaintiffs' accident-causation evidence. Their analyses addressed the minivan's handling and movement after the tread separation and considered vehicle evidence, physical roadway evidence, witness accounts, and accident reconstruction principles.
Juan Herrera, an expert for Cooper Tire, proffered an opinion in a bill of exception concerning the rollover and the occupants' lack of seat-belt use. Cooper Tire sought to use that evidence in support of a sole-causation theory. The trial court excluded the evidence under the Texas law governing seat-belt nonuse in civil cases at the time of trial.
5. Automotive Engineering Expert Witness
In tire-defect litigation involving issues similar to those raised in Cooper Tire v. Mendez, automotive engineering experts may be consulted to evaluate tire failure mechanisms, vehicle response following tread separation, tire construction, and the interaction between tire performance and vehicle handling. Their work may include reviewing physical tire evidence, vehicle dynamics, operating conditions, and engineering data to assess possible causes of a tire-related accident.
1. Texas Manufacturing Defect Claims Require Proof of a Departure From Planned Output
Under Texas product liability law, a manufacturing defect exists when a product deviates in its construction or quality from its specifications or planned output in a way that makes it unreasonably dangerous. A plaintiff must also establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer and that the defect was a producing cause of the claimed injuries.
In Cooper Tire v. Mendez, the alleged departure involved hydrocarbon wax that the plaintiffs claimed had contaminated the tire's skim stock during production. Their claim therefore depended on evidence showing both that the contamination existed when the tire left Cooper Tire and that it caused the later tread separation.
2. Texas Rule 702 Examines Expert Qualifications and Opinion Reliability
Texas Rule of Evidence 702 requires an expert to possess knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education that fits the specific subject of the proposed opinion. The reasoning and methods supporting the opinion must also be reliable.
The Texas Supreme Court applied both parts of that analysis in Mendez. It reviewed whether Grogan, Milner, and Crate were qualified to address the particular technical subjects before them and whether their conclusions rested on reliable methods rather than unsupported inference.
3. Physical Tire Evidence Must Be Connected to a Specific Failure Mechanism
A tire examination may identify polishing, fracture surfaces, exposed cords, liner markings, punctures, belt separation, and other physical conditions. Those findings can describe the tire's condition, but they do not automatically establish what caused the failure.
In Mendez, the court examined whether the physical conditions identified by the plaintiffs' experts were reliably connected to the alleged manufacturing defect. The issue was whether the evidence and methods supported the conclusion that contamination during production caused the separation.
4. The Failed Cooper Tire Had About 30,000 Miles of Use and a Nail Puncture
The tire involved in the rollover had accumulated approximately 30,000 miles before the tread separation. A nail hole was also found in the tread, and the nail had penetrated completely through the tire.
Those facts formed part of the competing explanations for the failure. The plaintiffs sought to show that the puncture and other service-related conditions did not cause the separation, while Cooper Tire disputed the claim that the tire had contained a manufacturing defect from the time it left the plant.
5. Eliminating Alternative Tire Failure Causes Does Not Establish a Manufacturing Defect by Itself
The plaintiffs presented evidence intended to discount possible causes such as underinflation, overloading, ordinary wear, and the nail puncture. The Texas Supreme Court concluded that eliminating some potential explanations did not establish the hydrocarbon-wax theory without reliable affirmative evidence supporting it.
The manufacturing-defect claim still required evidence connecting the condition of the tire to a defect that existed when it left Cooper Tire. The court found the expert evidence offered to establish that connection legally insufficient.
The Cooper Tire v. Mendez litigation moved from a 2001 jury verdict for the plaintiffs to an affirmance by the Texas Eighth Court of Appeals and later review by the Texas Supreme Court. The dispute before the state's highest court focused on whether the expert testimony supporting the alleged manufacturing defect was sufficiently reliable and whether the plaintiffs had presented legally sufficient evidence that the tire was defective when it left Cooper Tire. In June 2006, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the expert proof supporting the hydrocarbon-wax contamination theory and rendered judgment for Cooper Tire. The court later denied rehearing on December 1, 2006, leaving that disposition in place.
When and where did the Cooper Tire v. Mendez accident occur?
The accident occurred on June 29, 1997, on Interstate 25 near Albuquerque, New Mexico. The tread separated from the minivan's left rear Sigma Grand Sport radial tire before the vehicle moved toward the shoulder and rolled several times.
What happened to the occupants during the Mendez rollover?
All six passengers were ejected from the Mazda minivan, and four died at the scene or shortly afterward. Driver Oscar Mendez, Sr., who was wearing a seat belt, remained inside the vehicle.
What manufacturing defect did the plaintiffs allege caused the tire failure?
The plaintiffs alleged that hydrocarbon wax contaminated the tire's skim stock during manufacturing and reduced adhesion between internal tire components. Their theory was that this condition contributed to the tread and belt separation.
What judgment was entered against Cooper Tire after the jury verdict?
After the jury found that a manufacturing defect was a producing cause of the injuries, the trial court entered judgment against Cooper Tire totaling $11,508,080. The Texas Eighth Court of Appeals later affirmed that judgment.
How did the Texas Supreme Court resolve Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez?
On June 16, 2006, the Texas Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' expert evidence was legally insufficient to establish the alleged manufacturing defect. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and rendered judgment for Cooper Tire, and rehearing was denied on December 1, 2006.
1. Tire Failure Analysis Expert Witness
Richard "Rex" Grogan, for the plaintiffs, had extensive experience examining tire failures and had previously worked for Dunlop Tire Company. He attributed the tread and belt separation to contamination in the tire's skim stock and relied on physical conditions he observed during his examination.
The Texas Supreme Court did not treat his general tire-failure experience as sufficient support for the specific hydrocarbon-wax contamination theory. It concluded that the theory lacked a reliable scientific foundation because the record did not show adequate testing, quantitative analysis, peer-reviewed support, general acceptance, or other objective validation.
2. Materials and Failure Analysis Engineering Expert Witness
Alan Milner, for the plaintiffs, was an engineer with education in metallurgy and materials and experience in product failure analysis. His examination included visual inspection, X-rays, fracture-surface observations, and review of other physical conditions within the tire.
Milner used those observations to support his conclusion that the tire had not bonded properly during manufacturing. The Texas Supreme Court determined that the link between his observations and the manufacturing-defect opinion was not adequately supported by measurements, testing, published research, or another demonstrated analytical method.
3. Polymer Science, Tire Compounding, and Wax Migration Expert Witnesses
Jon Crate, for the plaintiffs, had academic training in chemistry and polymer science and engineering. His testimony addressed substances detected on tire samples and whether the wax identified during testing represented manufacturing contamination rather than normal migration through tire materials.
The Texas Supreme Court concluded that his broader scientific background did not establish sufficiently specialized qualifications in tire chemistry, wax migration, and tire adhesion for the particular opinions he offered.
Harold Herzlich and Jerry Leyden, for Cooper Tire, addressed rubber chemistry, tire compounding, and the movement of wax through tire components. Their testimony included explanations for how substances detected during laboratory examination could result from materials intentionally used in tire construction rather than contamination introduced during manufacturing.
4. Accident Causation, Reconstruction, and Vehicle Dynamics Expert Witnesses
Stephen Arndt and Curtis Flynn supported the plaintiffs' accident-causation evidence. Their analyses addressed the minivan's handling and movement after the tread separation and considered vehicle evidence, physical roadway evidence, witness accounts, and accident reconstruction principles.
Juan Herrera, an expert for Cooper Tire, proffered an opinion in a bill of exception concerning the rollover and the occupants' lack of seat-belt use. Cooper Tire sought to use that evidence in support of a sole-causation theory. The trial court excluded the evidence under the Texas law governing seat-belt nonuse in civil cases at the time of trial.
5. Automotive Engineering Expert Witness
In tire-defect litigation involving issues similar to those raised in Cooper Tire v. Mendez, automotive engineering experts may be consulted to evaluate tire failure mechanisms, vehicle response following tread separation, tire construction, and the interaction between tire performance and vehicle handling. Their work may include reviewing physical tire evidence, vehicle dynamics, operating conditions, and engineering data to assess possible causes of a tire-related accident.
1. Texas Manufacturing Defect Claims Require Proof of a Departure From Planned Output
Under Texas product liability law, a manufacturing defect exists when a product deviates in its construction or quality from its specifications or planned output in a way that makes it unreasonably dangerous. A plaintiff must also establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer and that the defect was a producing cause of the claimed injuries.
In Cooper Tire v. Mendez, the alleged departure involved hydrocarbon wax that the plaintiffs claimed had contaminated the tire's skim stock during production. Their claim therefore depended on evidence showing both that the contamination existed when the tire left Cooper Tire and that it caused the later tread separation.
2. Texas Rule 702 Examines Expert Qualifications and Opinion Reliability
Texas Rule of Evidence 702 requires an expert to possess knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education that fits the specific subject of the proposed opinion. The reasoning and methods supporting the opinion must also be reliable.
The Texas Supreme Court applied both parts of that analysis in Mendez. It reviewed whether Grogan, Milner, and Crate were qualified to address the particular technical subjects before them and whether their conclusions rested on reliable methods rather than unsupported inference.
3. Physical Tire Evidence Must Be Connected to a Specific Failure Mechanism
A tire examination may identify polishing, fracture surfaces, exposed cords, liner markings, punctures, belt separation, and other physical conditions. Those findings can describe the tire's condition, but they do not automatically establish what caused the failure.
In Mendez, the court examined whether the physical conditions identified by the plaintiffs' experts were reliably connected to the alleged manufacturing defect. The issue was whether the evidence and methods supported the conclusion that contamination during production caused the separation.
4. The Failed Cooper Tire Had About 30,000 Miles of Use and a Nail Puncture
The tire involved in the rollover had accumulated approximately 30,000 miles before the tread separation. A nail hole was also found in the tread, and the nail had penetrated completely through the tire.
Those facts formed part of the competing explanations for the failure. The plaintiffs sought to show that the puncture and other service-related conditions did not cause the separation, while Cooper Tire disputed the claim that the tire had contained a manufacturing defect from the time it left the plant.
5. Eliminating Alternative Tire Failure Causes Does Not Establish a Manufacturing Defect by Itself
The plaintiffs presented evidence intended to discount possible causes such as underinflation, overloading, ordinary wear, and the nail puncture. The Texas Supreme Court concluded that eliminating some potential explanations did not establish the hydrocarbon-wax theory without reliable affirmative evidence supporting it.
The manufacturing-defect claim still required evidence connecting the condition of the tire to a defect that existed when it left Cooper Tire. The court found the expert evidence offered to establish that connection legally insufficient.
The Cooper Tire v. Mendez litigation moved from a 2001 jury verdict for the plaintiffs to an affirmance by the Texas Eighth Court of Appeals and later review by the Texas Supreme Court. The dispute before the state's highest court focused on whether the expert testimony supporting the alleged manufacturing defect was sufficiently reliable and whether the plaintiffs had presented legally sufficient evidence that the tire was defective when it left Cooper Tire. In June 2006, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the expert proof supporting the hydrocarbon-wax contamination theory and rendered judgment for Cooper Tire. The court later denied rehearing on December 1, 2006, leaving that disposition in place.
When and where did the Cooper Tire v. Mendez accident occur?
The accident occurred on June 29, 1997, on Interstate 25 near Albuquerque, New Mexico. The tread separated from the minivan's left rear Sigma Grand Sport radial tire before the vehicle moved toward the shoulder and rolled several times.
What happened to the occupants during the Mendez rollover?
All six passengers were ejected from the Mazda minivan, and four died at the scene or shortly afterward. Driver Oscar Mendez, Sr., who was wearing a seat belt, remained inside the vehicle.
What manufacturing defect did the plaintiffs allege caused the tire failure?
The plaintiffs alleged that hydrocarbon wax contaminated the tire's skim stock during manufacturing and reduced adhesion between internal tire components. Their theory was that this condition contributed to the tread and belt separation.
What judgment was entered against Cooper Tire after the jury verdict?
After the jury found that a manufacturing defect was a producing cause of the injuries, the trial court entered judgment against Cooper Tire totaling $11,508,080. The Texas Eighth Court of Appeals later affirmed that judgment.
How did the Texas Supreme Court resolve Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez?
On June 16, 2006, the Texas Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' expert evidence was legally insufficient to establish the alleged manufacturing defect. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and rendered judgment for Cooper Tire, and rehearing was denied on December 1, 2006.
Tire Failure
Manufacturing Defects
Mechanical Failure
Product Failure
Product Testing
Materials Testing
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Automotive Accidents
Product Safety
Automotive, +4
Automotive
Automotive, +4
Automotive