Rosa Obregon Perez, Ricardo O. Perez, Individually and as Next Friend of Rosa Elia Perez, Maria Perez Jalomus, Juan Jose Perez, Julio Perez, Jr., and Fernando Perez v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
04-14-00620-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 23, 2015Background
- Single-vehicle rollover (Feb. 14, 2006) after a Load Range E rear tire experienced a tread/belt separation; decedent died. Plaintiffs are the decedent's spouse and adult children.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants; timely nonsuited all but Goodyear and proceeded only against Goodyear.
- Plaintiffs designated a single tire expert, William Woehrle, to opine on design, manufacturing and marketing (warnings) theories; Goodyear moved to exclude him under Daubert/Robinson principles.
- After lengthy pretrial proceedings, the trial court excluded Woehrle, then granted Goodyear two partial no-evidence summary judgments (manufacturing/age-warnings and design claims) and entered a final judgment for Goodyear.
- Goodyear argued Woehrle was unqualified, relied on unsupported methodology and ipse dixit (including confidential/unproven Uniroyal testing and a nylon-overlay theory previously excluded in other cases); without admissible expert proof plaintiffs had no evidence of a defect or causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction — whether the appeal was timely given multiple summary orders | Appeal timely from the July 31 "Final Judgment"; review merits | Earlier partial summary judgment (July 11) disposed of all claims, so July 31 "final" is redundant and appeal from July 31 may be jurisdictionally defective | Court should scrutinize trial orders to determine jurisdiction (Goodyear raised jurisdictional concern) |
| Exclusion of expert (Woehrle) — abuse of discretion? | Woehrle is qualified by experience to opine on design, manufacture and warnings; his methods are reliable | Woehrle lacks relevant design/manufacturing/warnings qualifications, relied on unsupported theories (nylon overlay, weak boundary layers), and cannot produce underlying data | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding Woehrle as unreliable and unqualified under Robinson/Daubert standards |
| No-evidence summary judgment — product defect and causation without expert proof | Plaintiffs assert tire defect caused failure; Woehrle supplied causation and defect opinions | Without admissible expert evidence tying the specific tire to a defect, mere occurrence of tread separation is insufficient to raise a fact issue | Summary judgments proper: absent admissible expert proof, plaintiffs produced no more than speculation and failed the no-evidence standard |
| Alternative design / failure-to-warn (marketing) — would a nylon overlay or age warning have prevented harm? | Nylon overlay or age-based warnings were safer alternatives and Goodyear should have warned about age/overlay risks | Nylon overlays do not reliably prevent separations; Woehrle admitted he saw overlayed tires fail and is not a warnings expert; no testing shows prevention of this incident | Even if Woehrle admitted, his opinions do not show the alternative would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk; marketing/design claims fail as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (expert-admissibility framework applies to technical testimony)
- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (Robinson factors for reliability under Rule 702)
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2009) (combine Robinson analysis with analytical-gap review)
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. 2006) (summary judgment after excluding expert on tire manufacturing defect)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion review for expert-admissibility rulings)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (circumstantial evidence of product failure insufficient without expert proof)
- Smith v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, 495 F.3d 224 (5th Cir. 2007) (rejection of nylon-overlay theory in tire cases)
- Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 195 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2006) (analytical-gap principle in expert testimony)