Fields v. Walpole Tire Service, L.L.C., No. 45,206-CA (La. App. 5/19/2010), 45,206-CA.
| Decision Date | 19 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 45,206-CA.,45,206-CA. |
| Parties | CECIL FIELDS Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALPOLE TIRE SERVICE, L.L.C., THE GOODYER TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INC., QRS INSURANCE COMPANY & XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
WILLIE HUNTER, JR., KATRINA R. JACKSON, Counsel for Appellant.
LEE H. AYRES, Counsel for Appellee, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Inc.
GEORGE M. SNELLINGS, IV, Counsel for Appellees/Intervenors, Dontrell, Trucking, L.L.C. and Stonetrust Commercial Insurance Company.
ALLISON M. JARRELL, Counsel for Appellee/Intervenor, Dontrell Trucking, L.L.C.
Before WILLIAMS, STEWART and MOORE, JJ.
In this products liability action, plaintiff, Cecil Fields, appeals a jury verdict in favor of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ("Goodyear"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
In September 2003, Goodyear manufactured a G362 UNISTEEL radial truck tire in its plant located in Topeka, Kansas. Subsequently, the tire was purchased by Dontrell Trucking, LLC ("Dontrell Trucking") and placed into service on one of its trucks. In March 2006, the tire had been in service for approximately 100,000 miles, so Dontrell Trucking sent the tire to Walpole Tire Service, Inc. ("Walpole") to be retreaded. Walpole retreaded the tire and it was remounted on the truck.
Plaintiff was employed by Dontrell Trucking as a driver of a semitractor-trailer. On March 30, 2006, approximately two weeks after the tire was retreaded, plaintiff drove the truck with the retreaded tire from Farmerville to Shreveport. After plaintiff arrived at his destination, he parked the truck and exited it. As he was walking past the truck, a "zipper rupture" occurred in the tire. The pressure from the rupture knocked plaintiff to the ground. As a result of the incident, plaintiff sustained serious injuries.
On April 2, 2007, plaintiff filed a products liability action, naming Goodyear and Walpole as defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to properly mount and/or inspect the tire; failed to properly manufacture the tire; failed to produce a product free from defects; and failed to produce a reasonably safe product. Dontrell Trucking and its workers' compensation insurer, Stonetrust Commercial Insurance Company ("Stonetrust"), intervened in the lawsuit, asserting a workers' compensation lien.1
On October 3, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims against Walpole with prejudice, "while reserving rights against any remaining defendant(s) to the suit." The trial court granted the motion, and the matter proceeded to trial against Goodyear. Following a lengthy trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Goodyear, finding that the tire did not possess "a defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous." In accordance with the jury's verdict, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of Goodyear and against plaintiff and the intervenors, Dontrell Trucking and Stonetrust, dismissing all claims. Plaintiff and the intervenors appeal.
Motion to Supplement Record On appeal, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal," arguing that "newly discovered" evidence proved "that Goodyear was aware of a defect in the G362 and [an] alternative design [existed]." Plaintiff argues that in 2005, a Florida appeals court ordered Goodyear to make certain documents public, and Goodyear failed to do so. On the morning of oral argument in this matter, plaintiff filed a second motion to supplement the record, accompanied by an affidavit from an attorney in Florida and documents from the 2005 Florida case.2 Goodyear filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion. This court deferred both motions for consideration with the merits of the appeal.
A record on appeal which is incorrect or contains misstatements, irregularities or informalities, or which omits a material part of the trial record, may be corrected even after the record is transmitted to the appellate court, by the parties by stipulation, by the trial court or by the order of the appellate court. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2132. The purpose of LSA-C.C.P. art. 2132 is to assure that the record on appeal is correct, irrespective of why or by whose fault it is found to be inaccurate. See, Johnson v. Williams, 268 So.2d 522 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1972).
In White v. West Carroll Hospital, Inc., 613 So.2d 150 (La. 1992), the plaintiffs sought to supplement the appellate record with the record in another lawsuit. This court refused to consider the record in the prior lawsuit, and the Supreme Court affirmed, stating:
To receive the record in [the] prior suit . . . in evidence in this suit would constitute the taking of evidence and the exercise of original jurisdiction in a matter in which neither the court of appeal nor this court is vested with authority to do so. This is not a matter dealing with correcting erroneous records or supplementing records which are deficient as to matters actually introduced in evidence.
Id. at 154. See also Doe v. Dunn, 39,179 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/22/04), 890 So.2d 727, writ denied, 2005-0443 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1066.
In this case, plaintiff's motion does not concern the correction of an erroneous record or supplementation of a record which is deficient as to matters actually introduced into evidence in the trial court. To receive the documents offered by plaintiff would constitute the taking of new evidence and the exercise of original jurisdiction in this matter. This court cannot consider evidence which was not part of the record before the trial court. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied.
Plaintiff contends the jury erred in concluding that the tire did not contain a defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiff argues that the evidence showed that one of the protector belts on the tire was offcenter, and plaintiff's expert testified that the off-centeredness of the belt constituted a defect which existed when the tire was manufactured. Therefore, plaintiff maintains that the jury's verdict was erroneous.
In reviewing the factual findings of a trial court, we are limited to a determination of manifest error. Hill v. Morehouse Parish Police Jury, 95-4 1100 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 612. It is well settled that an appellate court may not disturb a jury's finding of fact unless the record establishes that a factual, reasonable basis does not exist and the finding is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Syrie v. Schilhab, 96-1027 (La. 5/20/97), 693 So.2d 1173. An appellate court must do more than simply review the record for some evidence which supports or controverts the findings. Stobart v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993). It must instead review the record in its entirety to determine whether the factual findings were clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Id. Significantly, the issue to be resolved is not whether the jury was right or wrong, but whether its conclusion was reasonable. Id. Thus, an appellate court, after a full review of the record, may not reverse reasonable findings, even if we had weighed the evidence differently sitting as the trier of fact. See, Siverd v. Permanent General Ins. Co., 2005-0973 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d 497.
To maintain a successful products liability action under the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("the LPLA"), a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) that the defendant is a manufacturer of the product; (2) that the claimant's damage was proximately caused by a characteristic of the product; (3) that this characteristic made the product "unreasonably dangerous;" and (4) that the claimant's damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product by the claimant or someone else. LSA-R.S. 9:2800.54(A).
A product is "unreasonably dangerous" under the LPLA if and only if the product meets at least one of the following criteria: (1) the product is unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition as provided in LSR.S. 9:2800.55; (2) the product is unreasonably dangerous in design as provided in LSA-R.S. 9:2800.56; (3) the product is unreasonably dangerous because an adequate warning about the product has not been provided as provided in LSA-R.S. 9:2800.57; or (4) the product is unreasonably dangerous because it does not conform to an express warranty of the manufacturer about the product as provided in LSA-R.S. 9:2800.58. See, LSA-R.S. 9:2800.54(B). The claimant has the burden of proving the elements of Subsections A, B and C3 of LSA-R.S. 9:2800.54. See, LSA-R.S. 9:2800.54(D).
LSA-R.S. 9:2800.55 provides:
A product is unreasonably dangerous in construction and composition if the product deviated from the manufacturer's specifications or performance standards for the product or from otherwise identical products manufactured by the manufacturer.
In the instant case, the jury was presented with differing opinions of expert witnesses. Plaintiff's expert testified that the rupture in the tire was the result of a defect in the construction or composition of the tire. Conversely, defense experts testified that tire did not deviate from Goodyear's specifications or performance standards, and was, therefore, not defective in composition or design. Rather, defense experts opined that the rupture in the tire was caused by under-inflation of the tire. After hearing the testimony and viewing supporting documents, the jury concluded that the tire did not have "a defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous."
After reviewing the record in its entirety, we conclude that the jury was not manifestly erroneous or clearly in concluding that the tire did not contain a defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous. The jury obviously chose to credit the opinions of defense experts over evidence presented...
To continue reading
Request your trial