465 F. App'x 375
5th Cir.2012Background
- Trenados filed a diversity products liability suit in Texas against Cooper Tire after a tire failure on the Trenados’ van caused a fatal crash.
- The tire was a Sears Guardsman Trailhandler AP P235/75R15 XL manufactured by Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. and failed catastrophically during travel at high speed, contributing to fatalities and injuries.
- The case centered on whether Cooper was strictly liable for design/manufacturing defects or negligent in design/manufacture, with the jury finding no liability on these grounds and the district court entering a take-nothing judgment.
- Question 1 on the verdict form included a rebuttable presumption of no liability under Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.008 for compliance with federally mandated safety standards applicable at manufacture, specifically FMVSS 109.
- The Trenados challenged the jury instruction on § 82.008 and sought exclusion of FMVSS 109 evidence via a motion in limine; the district court denied the motion and the verdict.
- This appeal followed, with issues focusing on the jury instruction’s propriety, FMVSS 109’s applicability to the relevant risk, and the denial of the in limine motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 82.008 presumption instruction was proper | Trenados argue instruction was error not applicable to risk | Cooper contends presumption properly applied as tire failed due to durability risk | Supported; instruction upheld as proper regarding risk and compliance evidence. |
| Whether FMVSS 109 governs the relevant product risk | FMVSS 109 does not address tire durability risks at issue | FMVSS 109 governs tire durability and related failure risks | FMVSS 109 governs the risk of tire failure in this case. |
| Whether there was evidence of FMVSS 109 compliance to justify the presumption | No FMVSS 109 evidence; insufficient basis | DOT number and surveillance tests showed compliance | Evidence sufficient; jury could find compliance supported the presumption. |
| Whether relying on FMVSS 109 evidence at trial was error for denial of the motion in limine | Denial erroneous; evidence irrelevant to liability | FMVSS 109 relevant to the product risk; admissible | District court’s denial not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the presumption applied to the tire’s manufacture timing | No evidence FMVSS 109 applied to subject tire at manufacture | Testing on similar tires two weeks before and after showed applicable standard | Not plain error; presumption applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Ford Motor Co., 508 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2007) (instructional error and § 82.008 analysis focused on risk, not defect)
- Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 508 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion in evaluating jury instructions)
- FDIC v. Blanton, 918 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1990) (entitlement to jury instruction requires some evidence)
- Hansard v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 865 F.2d 1461 (5th Cir. 1989) (plain error review limits for unpreserved issues)
- Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for motion in limine)