Richards v. Michelin Tire Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-6547,92-6547 |
| Citation | 21 F.3d 1048 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P. 13,892 John RICHARDS, as Conservator, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHELIN TIRE CORP., Defendant-Appellant, The Budd Company; Ford Motor Co., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Wade B. Perry, Mobile, AL, Daryll Love, Robert P. Monyak, Allen Willingham, Love & Willingham, Atlanta, GA, Eric H. Holtzman, Law Office of Eric H. Holtzman, Hauppauge, NY, for appellant.
Andrew T. Citrin, James A. Yance, Michael A. Worel, Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown, Mobile, AL, for appellee.
Malcolm E. Wheeler, Parcel, Mauro, Hultin & Spaanstra, P.C., Denver, CO, amicus.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Before BLACK, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellee John Richards, as conservator and guardian of the estate of Leonard Richards, 1 brought this action against Michelin Tire Corporation ("Appellant") for injuries sustained from the explosion of a 16-inch Michelin tire that Richards was attempting to mount onto a 16.5-inch rim. A jury awarded $161,475 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages. Appellant appeals the district court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JNOV" or "judgment notwithstanding the verdict") or, alternatively, for a new trial. We vacate the district court's order and grant Appellant's motion for JNOV on Richards' wantonness cause of action. With respect to Richards' negligence cause of action, Appellant is entitled to a new trial.
Mounting refers to the process of placing the tire onto a metal rim. The first step in the process involves matching the tire to the rim. Matching is extremely important as mismatches can result in explosions, as occurred in this case. Once matched, the tire is fitted around the rim and inflated. During inflation, the tire will "seat" itself against the rim. Once seated, the tire may be inflated to its operating or maximum inflation level. While mounting the tire, the person doing the mounting should use a tire cage or some other protective device to insure that he or she will not be harmed in the event of a mishap. The mounter should not stand near the tire to monitor air pressure during the mounting process.
Beginning in 1975, the Tire Guide, a publication of the Tire and Rim Association, printed warnings about the danger of mismatches. Appellant first learned of mismatch dangers in 1976. Between 1976 and 1982, Appellant was sued for at least three mismatch accidents. In 1982, Ford Motor Company ("Ford") switched its trucks to 16-inch tires and 16-inch rims from 16.5 inches. Concerned that mismatches would occur as consumers attempted to put new tires and rims onto the older trucks, Ford demanded that its tire suppliers provide warnings of the mismatch hazard on the sidewalls of their 16-inch tires. The exact wording of the warning was up to each individual supplier. With Ford's consent, most of the tire manufacturers added language stating "warning" or "danger." Appellant initially denied Ford's request for a warning because it felt that it was unnecessary 3 and could start a dangerous legal precedent. Ultimately Appellant acquiesced and, with Ford's approval, Appellant added the following language to its tires' sidewalls: "Mount only on approved 16-inch rims." 4 Although Appellant stated that this warning would be added to its tire warranty booklets, it did not do so.
Leonard Richards was a 30 year-old farmhand employed at Driskell Farms in Grand Bay, Alabama. Although his duties included changing tires, his only training in this area occurred on the job. On May 4, 1987, Richards' supervisor, William B. Driskell, asked him to change a flat trailer tire, selecting a 16-inch Michelin tubeless radial tire for the job. 5 While attempting to change the tire, Richards had problems with the old metal rim and was told by Driskell to discard it and get a "16-inch wheel" from the shed.
Richards went to the shed and retrieved a 16.5-inch rim instead of a 16-inch rim. The 16.5-inch size was legibly marked on the rim. Because he continued to have problems changing the tire, Driskell told him to finish the job the next day. The following morning, Richards again tried to mount the 16-inch tire on the 16.5-inch rim. He and a co-worker attempted to mount the tire onto the rim by inserting an inner tube despite the tire's "tubeless" notation and three statements on the inner tube reading "Not For Use in Radial Tires." Further, the inner tube was marked in various locations with its 16-inch size.
In attempting to mount the tire, Richards began to inflate it to 70-75 pounds of pressure, which was ten pounds over its maximum capacity. Although Driskell Farms owned a tire cage, Richards was not using it. 6 After inflating the tire, Richards noticed that it had not yet mounted, stating "if seventy or seventy-five pounds won't push it out, I don't know what will." Some ten seconds later, as he stood above the tire, it exploded, causing him severe physical harm and brain damage.
On September 22, 1988, Richards sued Appellant and The Budd Company ("Budd"), the rim manufacturer, in an Alabama trial court for injuries incurred while changing the tire. In December of 1988, the case was removed to the federal district court for reasons of diversity jurisdiction, and Ford was added as an additional defendant. Ford and Budd then settled with Richards for $2,000,000.
Richards proceeded to trial with two separate causes of action against Appellant: negligence and wantonness. In his first cause of action, Richards alleged that he was injured because of Appellant's negligence in: (a) designing, manufacturing, assembling, selling and supplying the tire when it knew or had reason to know that the tire was not fit for its intended uses ("design defect claim" or "design claim") 7 and (b) failing to place proper warnings on its tires regarding mismatches ("warning claim"). Richards alleged the same design and warning claims in support of his wantonness cause of action.
After a two week trial, the jury found by special verdict forms that: (1) Appellant was negligent in either designing, manufacturing, and selling the tire or by failing to provide adequate warnings and instructions, and such negligence was the proximate cause of Richards' danger; (2) Appellant failed to show Richards was contributorily negligent; and (3) Appellant was wanton in either designing, manufacturing, and selling the tire or by failing to warn and instruct Richards, and such wantonness was the proximate cause of Richards' damage. The jury returned a verdict against Appellant for $161,475 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. 8 After setting off the monies received from Ford and Budd, judgment was entered against Appellant for $3,161,475. On March 24, 1992, Appellant filed a renewed motion for JNOV and alternative motion for a new trial, which was denied.
Denial of a motion for JNOV is a question of law which we review de novo. Pinnacle Port Community Ass'n v. Orenstein, 952 F.2d 375, 378 (11th Cir.1992). In conducting our review, we consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 378-79; Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir.1991). Reversal of an order denying a motion for JNOV is proper only if the facts and inferences are such that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict. Davis v. Locke, 936 F.2d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir.1991). To grant a motion for a new trial, the district court must find the verdict contrary to the great weight of the evidence; we will reverse the denial of a motion for a new trial only for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Magnolia Brokerage Co., 742 F.2d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir.1984).
A. With respect to either cause of action, is Appellant entitled to JNOV or a new trial if it establishes that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict under either the warning claim or the design defect claim?
B. Did the district court err in denying Appellant's motion for JNOV or a new trial?
Appellant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict and therefore the district court erred in denying its motion for JNOV or a new trial. Richards disputes this assertion, maintaining that Appellant is not entitled to reversal on either his negligence or wantonness causes of action unless it demonstrates the invalidity of both the design and warning claims with respect to each cause of action (the "two-issue" rule). For example, with respect to negligence, Richards maintains that for Appellant to obtain JNOV or a new trial, Appellant must show that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict under both the design and warning claims. Richards' argument is premised on the fact that he lumped the design and warning claims into the same cause of action in his complaint. In Count II of his second amended complaint, he alleged that Appellant was negligent either in designing the tire or by failing to warn about mismatches. He made the same allegations in Count III with respect to wantonness. Similarly, the interrogatories accompanying the verdict distinguished between wantonness and negligence but they did not separate the design claim from the warning claim. The interrogatories simply asked if Appellant was negligent (or wanton) in either its design of the tire or its failure to warn. 10 Because the design and warning claims were united Richards asserts that Appellant must demonstrate the failure of both claims to succeed on its motion for JNOV or for a new trial with respect to either the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
York v. InTrust Bank, N.A.
...the punitive damages award but cites Richards v. Michelin Tire Corp., 786 F.Supp. 964 (S.D.Ala.1992), vacated on other grounds 21 F.3d 1048 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1111, 115 S.Ct. 902, 130 L.Ed.2d 786 (1995), for allowing a credit against punitive damages. InTrust points to t......
-
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
...584 So.2d 447 (Ala.1991); Yamaha Motor Co., supra; Dunn v. Wixom Bros., 493 So.2d 1356 (Ala.1986). See also Richards v. Michelin Tire Corp., 21 F.3d 1048 (11th Cir.1994), and Reynolds v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 989 F.2d 465 (11th Cir.1993). Of course, the particular facts of a case may......
-
Jowers v. Boc Group, Inc.
...150. Motion at 1 (docket no. 445). 151. 997 S.W.2d 584 (Tex.1999). 152. Id. at 597. 153. Id. at 597-98. 154. Id. at 598. 155. 21 F.3d 1048, 1050 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1111, 115 S.Ct. 902, 130 L.Ed.2d 786 156. Id. at 1051. 157. Id. at 1058-59 (quoting Salter v. Westra, 904 ......
-
Maiz v. Virani
...because courts treat a motion for judgment as a matter of law differently than they do a motion for new trial. InRichards v. Michelin Tire Corp., 21 F.3d 1048 (11th Cir.1994), we refused to order a JNOV against a plaintiff on its negligence claim even though we found insufficient evidence r......
-
Exploring Wantonness
...1995). However, "notice of prior injuries does not automatically create a jury question on wantonness." Richards v. Michelin Tire Corp., 21 F.3d 1048, 1058 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1111 (1995). Other evidence may show that the plaintiff's injury was still unlikely, or that i......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - Philip W. Savrin
...Id. at 1128. 140. Id. 141. Id. 142. Id. 143. Id. 144. Id. 145. Id. 146. Id. 147. Id. at 1129. 148. Id. 149. Id. 150. Id. at 1133. 151. 21 F.3d 1048 (11th Cir. 1994), cert, denied, 115 S. Ct. 902 (1995). 152. 21 F.3d at 1055. 153. Id. See Prudential Ins. Co. v. Morrow, 339 F.2d 411, 412-13 (......
-
Walls v. Alpharma: is the learned intermediary doctrine the right cure for pharmacists in Alabama?
...duty to warn consumers, but they should be alert for patent errors). (8) Walls, 887 So. 2d at 886. (9) Richards v. Michelin Tire Corp., 21 F.3d 1048, 1058 (11th Cir. (l0) The Restatement (Second) of Torts [section] 402A (1965) provides that: (1) One who sells any product in a defective cond......