Samuel Medina, Obdulia Medina, Natalye Medina, and Navil Gibson v. Michelin North America, Inc., and Jose Bustillo D/B/A Mundo Cars
05-16-00794-CV
Tex. App.Jan 29, 2018Background
- 2012 one-vehicle rollover: an eleven-year-old Michelin LTX M/S tire (manufactured 2001) allegedly burst, injuring appellants (passengers). Tire still had ~3× federal minimum tread.
- Vehicle was a used/salvage 2000 Ford Expedition purchased from Mundo Cars; seller repaired vehicle before resale.
- Plaintiffs (Medinas) sued Michelin for design defect, manufacturing defect, marketing/failure-to-warn, negligence, post-sale duty to warn, and sought punitive damages for gross negligence; they relied principally on expert Troy W. Cottles (forensic tire analyst).
- Michelin moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including conditional no-evidence challenges premised on excluding or limiting Cottles’s testimony; Michelin separately moved to exclude the expert.
- Trial court denied Michelin’s motion to exclude Cottles, yet granted Michelin summary judgment on all claims and severed the Michelin claims for appeal.
- On appeal, the court reversed in part (design, manufacturing, marketing, negligence claims) and affirmed in part (punitive damages and post-sale duty to warn), remanding for further proceedings on the reversed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design, manufacturing, negligence (summary judgment) | Cottles’s expert evidence creates fact issues; summary judgment premised on exclusion of expert was improper because court denied exclusion | Michelin argued no-evidence motion was sufficient because, even if admitted, Cottles’s testimony amounted to no evidence | Reversed: trial court erred to grant no-evidence SJ after denying exclusion because Michelin’s no-evidence grounds were contingent on exclusion and did not separately identify elements lacking evidence |
| Marketing defect / failure-to-warn (causation) | A warning that tire was unsafe after 10 years would have prevented sale/use; affidavits say some plaintiffs and seller would have read/heeded such warnings | Michelin argued lack of a warnings expert and evidence that vehicle owners/occupants didn’t read existing warnings negates causation | Reversed: summary judgment improper—defendant did not conclusively negate causation given plaintiff affidavits and evidence that a different or clearer warning could have been heeded by seller/occupants |
| Punitive damages (gross negligence) | Michelin knew risks of tire aging and intentionally chose a design without an alternative (nylon cap ply); this shows conscious indifference and extreme risk | Michelin argued plaintiffs had no evidence of objective extreme-risk element or subjective actual awareness and conscious indifference | Affirmed: plaintiffs failed to raise fact issues on both objective extreme-degree-of-risk and subjective actual awareness required for gross negligence punitive damages |
| Post-sale duty to warn / continuing duty | Plaintiffs argued Michelin had knowledge of aging risks and thus a continuing duty to warn after sale | Michelin argued Texas does not recognize a general post-sale duty to warn and any such claim is preempted | Affirmed: Texas law does not recognize a distinct general post-sale duty to warn based solely on pre-sale knowledge; SJ proper on that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (standard of review for summary judgment; affirm if any movant ground meritorious)
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (motion for summary judgment must stand or fall on grounds presented)
- McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (summary judgment motion must expressly present grounds)
- Cmty. Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. Corp. v. Hansen, 525 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2017) (no-evidence motion must identify specific elements challenged)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rios, 143 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (causation requirement for failure-to-warn/marketing-defect claims)
- Stewart v. Transit Mix Concrete & Materials Co., 988 S.W.2d 252 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998) (rebuttable presumption that proper warnings would be heeded; no presumption if plaintiff failed to read warnings)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1999) (definition and elements of gross negligence for punitive damages)
- Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994) (extreme-risk requirement for punitive damages)
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (Texas does not generally recognize a post-sale duty to warn)