Personal Injury Law

High Court Rules 6 to 1 Against Goodyear in $30 million verdict

Tennessee residents and people all across the United States use and rely on millions of products every day to get them safely to and from their destinations, to protect their loved ones, to talk with friends and to make businesses run smoothly. Unfortunately, sometimes the products we depend on to get us through the day are defective and may result in our loved ones suffering injuries because of it. If you have or someone you care about has suffered an injury because of a defective product, then you should speak to a Tennessee defective product and personal injury lawyer right away. They will work with you and see to it that you get the compensation you are entitled to for the injuries you have suffered.

In this case, Ernesto Torres was driving a Ford F-350 Econoline 15-passenger van on August 16, 2004, when the van flipped over after a Goodyear Load Range E tire on the left rear tire blew after a tread separation. Andrew Torres, Hervetina Bahena and Frank Enriquez, three passengers in the van were killed and Joseph Enriquez suffered from severe brain injuries and six other passengers were also injured.

The injured parties and families of the crash victims claim that the tire and the van were both designed defectively and manufactured with a tire that was prone to tread separation. Ford Motor Company settled before the trial and the amount was not disclosed. Goodyear wanted to argue in 2007 that the tire failure was due to significant road hazard damage that had taken place before the accident.

However, the judge in that trial ruled without holding a full evidentiary hearing struck down Goodyear?s liability issue and allowed the defendants to contest damages only. The jury awarded $14 million in damages to Joseph Enriquez, and a total of $14 million to the three families of the crash victims.

In July 2010, the state Supreme Court upheld the decision and stated, hen a sanction is ?non-case concluding,? an evidentiary hearing is not mandatory.? Then Goodyear, supported by several associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sought a rehearing. In its most recent ruling the state high court, however denied the petition but addressed issues to justify its 2010 decision. The court stated that, ?A January 2007 hearing attended by counsel for both sides was sufficient for the trial judge to ask questions on the discovery dispute without the necessity of cross-examination.?

?Although Goodyear requested an evidentiary hearing, it did not make an offer of proof to the district court as to what evidence should be considered in addition to the representations of counsel,? the Supreme Court ruled.

Full post as published by Tennessee Law Blog on January 07, 2011 (boomark / email).