Manning v. Liberty Tire Servs. of Ohio, LLC, 577 S.W.3d 102

Background

On November 3, 2014 a tire fire at Liberty Tire (leased facility owned by Bohannon) burned >2 days, producing soot, ash, and particulate matter over surrounding neighborhoods; a one-mile Shelter‑In‑Place (SIP) order was issued for part of the area.
Air monitoring recorded high short‑term particulate concentrations; a CTEH study found brief exceedances but not unhealthy levels when averaged longer term. A forensic meteorology expert modeled the plume and identified a geographic deposition zone north of the facility.
Plaintiffs Manning and Cotton filed suit alleging negligence, recklessness, and intentional conduct; they proposed two subclasses: (1) residents subject to the SIP order and (2) property owners on whose property soot/ash from the fire landed (plume zone). Plaintiffs estimated ~2,500 potential class members.
The Jefferson Circuit Court denied class certification, finding plaintiffs failed to satisfy CR 23.01 (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and CR 23.02(c) (predominance/superiority). Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion, accepted that the class definitions were not impermissible "fail‑safe" classes, reversed the circuit court on CR 23.01 elements (finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy satisfied), but affirmed denial because CR 23.02(c) predominance was not met due to individualized causation/impact/damage issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the proposed class definition impermissibly "fail‑safe"?	Definition uses objective geographic boundaries (one‑mile SIP radius and modeled plume), so membership is ascertainable.	Class is tied to injury and thus would require merits inquiries to determine membership.	Not fail‑safe: geographic boundaries and expert plume model make membership objectively determinable.
Did plaintiffs satisfy CR 23.01 numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy?	Yes — proposed ~2,500 members; single event gives common liability questions; named plaintiffs’ claims arise from same event and legal theories; plaintiffs and counsel adequate.	Disparity of exposure and damage among putative members defeats these prerequisites.	Court of Appeals: plaintiffs satisfied all four CR 23.01 requirements; circuit court abused its discretion in finding otherwise.
Do common questions predominate under CR 23.02(c)?	Liability (duty, breach, causation from single fire) is common and can be decided classwide; damages can be bifurcated.	Individual issues — whether soot/ash landed on each property, alternative sources, individual harm, compliance with SIP — would require individualized proof and predominate.	Affirmed denial: individualized causation, impact, and damages questions are numerous and complex enough that common issues do not predominate.
Was denial of class certification an abuse of discretion?	Plaintiffs argue circuit court misapplied CR 23 and federal precedent and thus abused discretion.	Defendants argue court reasonably exercised discretion on predominance and superiority grounds.	No abuse of discretion as to CR 23.02(c); appellate court affirms denial of class certification.

Key Cases Cited

Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2012) (class definition must be sufficiently definite and not fail‑safe)
Hensley v. Haynes Trucking, LLC, 549 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. 2018) (Kentucky guidance on CR 23 commonality and limits on merits review at certification)
Olden v. LaFarge Corp., 383 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2004) (single‑event toxic exposure: liability may be adjudicated classwide where source is sole cause)
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988) (mass‑disaster class actions can permit classwide liability determinations)
Randleman v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 646 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for class‑certification review)