Donald Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North Am
932 F.3d 986
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Donald and Mary Timm were severely injured in a 2013 motorcycle crash after the rear tire was punctured, rapidly deflated, and ultimately unseated from the rim; both wore recalled Ultra Low Profile Outlaw half‑helmets.
- The Timms sued helmet suppliers/distributors (collectively the helmet defendants), Harley‑Davidson (motorcycle), and Goodyear Dunlop (tire) under the Indiana Products Liability Act alleging helmet defects enhanced injuries and tire/motorcycle defects caused the crash.
- Tegol issued a recall for the helmets, stating noncompliance with DOT standards; Mary purchased her helmet from Nanal.com (Nanal, Inc.), the only remaining helmet defendant on appeal.
- The Timms offered no medical/expert testimony tying helmet defects to enhanced head injuries; the district court granted summary judgment on helmet claims as lay jurors could not separate crash injuries from enhanced injuries without experts.
- The Timms proffered two experts for tire/motorcycle causation: William Woehrle (tire specialist) and Dr. Daniel Lee (accident reconstructionist). The district court excluded both under Rule 702/Daubert for unreliable methodology and lack of relevant qualifications.
- With experts excluded, the district court granted summary judgment for all defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove the helmet enhanced Mary’s injuries (crashworthiness/causation) | Timms: Recall + injury severity suffice to show helmet defects enhanced injuries; crashworthiness doctrine applies | Helmet defendants: Plaintiff must prove proximate causation of enhancement; lay jurors cannot parse enhancement without expert proof | Held: Expert testimony required; summary judgment affirmed for helmet defendants |
| Whether negligent recall / failure‑to‑warn claim exists under Indiana law | Timms: Delayed recall made helmets unreasonably dangerous/defendant negligent | Helmet defendants: No legal basis in Indiana for negligent recall claim; district court dismissed | Held: Timms waived challenge on appeal; district court ruling stands |
| Admissibility of Woehrle’s causation opinions re: tire unseating (Rule 702/Daubert) | Timms: Woehrle’s inspection and experience support opinion that manufacturing defects caused immediate unseating | Defendants: Opinions lack empirical testing, replicable methodology, and objective support | Held: Exclusion proper—opinions speculative, unsupported by validated methodology |
| Admissibility of Lee’s opinions on cause (tire hop/unseating) and on need for tire pressure monitoring | Timms: Lee’s reconstruction supports unseating → hop → loss of control; TPM would have prevented crash | Defendants: Lee lacked tire/bead expertise and provided no testing or literature to support causation or TPM efficacy | Held: Exclusion proper—insufficient qualifications and unreliable methodology; TPM testimony also excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (district court must gatekeep expert testimony for relevance and reliability under Rule 702)
- Piltch v. Ford Motor Co., 778 F.3d 628 (7th Cir. 2015) (expert testimony required where jurors cannot distinguish ordinary from enhanced injuries without speculation)
- Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2011) (discussing crashworthiness doctrine and enhanced‑injury causation under Indiana law)
- Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953 (Ind. 2018) (plaintiff must prove product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous and that the product caused plaintiff’s injuries)
- Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000) (court must assess expert qualifications and methodology; experience alone does not substitute for reliable methods)