Lea Ann Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.
473 S.W.3d 734
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Lea Ann Tatham purchased two Primewell PS830 rear tires in March 2008; one failed on May 30, 2008 while she was driving, causing a single-vehicle rollover that totaled the car and injured her. The vehicle (and tire) was towed, titled to the wrecker/insurer, and later destroyed before defendants could inspect the tire.
- Plaintiff sued Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC and GITI Tire (USA) Ltd. under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (strict liability, negligence, warranties, failure to warn). The actual manufacturer (GITI Tire (Hualin) in China) is not a party.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as sanction for spoliation and later for summary judgment (arguing plaintiff cannot prove defect or causation without the tire). Trial court denied both motions; defendants appealed to this Court.
- The trial court relied on evidence (witness Dr. Rogers saw “flapping” tire tread; plaintiff’s expert Dr. Sissom opined design/manufacturing defect was more likely than not) and found genuine issues of fact about defect and causation.
- The trial court denied dismissal for spoliation, finding no evidence of intentional destruction; the Supreme Court reviewed whether intentionality is required for spoliation sanctions and the propriety of denying summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal (or other sanction) was required for spoliation of the tire | Tatham argued destruction was routine (wrecker/insurer) and not intentional; trial court’s denial of dismissal appropriate | Defendants argued Rule 34A.02 allows Rule 37 sanctions without requiring intentional misconduct and dismissal was warranted because loss of the tire prejudiced defense | Court held intentional misconduct is not a prerequisite to sanctions but affirmed trial court did not abuse discretion in denying dismissal based on totality of circumstances (no evidence of fraudulent intent; prejudice not shown to require dismissal) |
| Whether summary judgment should be granted because the missing tire prevents proof of defect/causation | Tatham relied on witness observations and expert opinion to create triable issues of defect and causation despite absence of the tire | Defendants argued absence of the physical tire makes causation/defect impossible and thus summary judgment should be granted | Court held genuine issues of material fact exist on defect and causation; denial of summary judgment was proper under de novo review and Rye/Federal-summary-judgment framework |
| Whether the consumer expectation or prudent manufacturer test applies to tire unreasonably dangerous inquiry | Tatham implicitly relied on consumer expectation (ordinary drivers understand tire function) | Defendants urged tire is a "complex product" requiring prudent-manufacturer test | Court held a tire is not a "complex product" for this purpose and the consumer expectation test may apply; either test remains available depending on proof |
| Whether apparent manufacturer doctrine or seller immunity bars suit against Bridgestone | Tatham argued Bridgestone sold, marketed, warrantied and inspected the tires (raising seller liability and apparent manufacturer theories) | Bridgestone argued it was not the manufacturer (GITI Hualin was) and moved for summary judgment | Court found a genuine issue whether Bridgestone had a reasonable opportunity to inspect and discover defect under Tenn. Code §29-28-106(a) (as then worded); because seller-liability issue creates triable fact, Court declined to decide apparent-manufacturer doctrine and denied Bridgestone relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2004) (trial courts have broad inherent authority and wide discretion to impose discovery sanctions)
- Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (adopting federal Rule 56/Celotex summary judgment framework)
- Ray ex rel. Holman v. BIC Corp., 925 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. 1996) (defines consumer-expectation and prudent-manufacturer tests under the Products Liability Act)
- Jackson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 60 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. 2001) (product-complexity guidance; consumer-expectation test not limited to simple products)
- Lyle v. Exxon Corp., 746 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. 1988) (recognition of inherent power of trial judges to sanction discovery abuse)
- Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH, 955 S.W.2d 252 (Tenn. 1997) (distinguishing cause-in-fact and proximate cause concepts)