Vaughn v. Michelin Tire Corp.

• Decision Date: 05 July 1988
• Docket Number: 14250,Nos. 14248,s. 14248
• Citation: Vaughn v. Michelin Tire Corp., 756 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. App. 1988)
• Parties: Wayne VAUGHN and Karen Vaughn, his wife, and Norma Young, Plaintiffs- Respondents, v. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION and S.A.F.E. DeNeumaticos Michelin, Defendants- Appellants. and Wayne VAUGHN and Karen Vaughn, his wife, and Norma Young, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. TRUXAN PARTS, INC., d/b/a "Tire Town", Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 548

756 S.W.2d 548

Wayne VAUGHN and Karen Vaughn, his wife, and Norma Young, Plaintiffs- Respondents, v. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION and S.A.F.E. DeNeumaticos

Michelin, Defendants- Appellants.

and

Wayne VAUGHN and Karen Vaughn, his wife, and Norma Young, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. TRUXAN PARTS, INC., d/b/a "Tire Town", Defendant-Respondent.

Nos. 14248, 14250.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Southern District,

En Banc.

July 5, 1988.

Motion for Rehearing or Transfer Denied

July 26, 1988.

As Modified July 26, 1988.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 13, 1988.

Jerry L. Redfern, Paul G. White, Neale, Newman, Bradshaw & Freeman, Springfield, for defendants-appellants.

Thomas Strong, John Wooddell, Steve Garner, Strong & Wooddell, P.C., Springfield, for plaintiffs-appellants and plaintiffs-respondents.

Raymond E. Whiteaker, John E. Price, Woolsey, Fisher, Whiteaker & McDonald, Springfield, for defendant-respondent.

HOGAN, Judge.

These consolidated appeals arise out of a single products liability action. On August 16, 1978, plaintiff Wayne Vaughn was driving a fully-loaded dump truck eastbound on Missouri Highway 174. As Vaughn approached and came to a point about .2 miles east of the intersection of Highway 174 and Highway PP in Greene County, his left front tire, a Michelin tire, exploded. The truck went out of control, left the road and overturned. Vaughn's left leg was pinned beneath the hot exhaust pipe on the left side of the cab of the truck. He sustained serious, permanent and disabling physical injuries.

Vaughn filed suit in the Circuit Court of Greene County, seeking damages for personal injury. His wife Karen joined as a plaintiff, seeking damages for loss of consortium. Michelin Tire Corporation and Truxan Parts, Inc., were joined as defendants. Initial discovery revealed that the tire involved was manufactured by Michelin's Spanish affiliate, S.A.F.E. DeNeumaticos Michelin (Spanish Michelin). Accordingly, plaintiffs Vaughn filed an amended petition joining defendants Spanish Michelin as manufacturer, Michelin as distributor and Truxan Parts, Inc., as retailer of the tire. Plaintiff Norma Young, owner of the truck involved in the accident, intervened as plaintiff, seeking to recover damages for the destruction of the truck.

Plaintiffs' case was submitted to the jury on the theory of strict liability in tort. The jury found the issues submitted for the plaintiffs and against defendants Michelin and Spanish Michelin. Plaintiff Wayne Vaughn's damages were assessed at the sum of $750,000; plaintiff Karen Vaughn was awarded $75,000 for loss of consortium. Plaintiff Norma Young's damages were assessed at $46,000. The jury found no liability on the part of defendant Truxan Parts. Appeal No. 14250 is the appeal of Michelin and Spanish Michelin from the verdicts and judgments entered against them; Appeal No. 14248 consists of plaintiffs' cross-appeal from the verdict and judgment in favor of defendant Truxan Parts, Inc., and their appeal from the trial court's refusal to award prejudgment interest.

Appeal No. 14250 is the more complex of the two appeals and we shall consider it first.

As noted, the accident which gave rise to this action occurred on August 16, 1978, as plaintiff Wayne Vaughn was driving a 1974 Ford dump truck eastbound on Highway 174 in Greene County. He was pulling a 14-foot Marx pup trailer when the tire on the left front wheel of the dump truck exploded. Vaughn attempted to bring the truck to a stop but it went out of control, ran off the road and rolled down an embankment. Vaughn was thrown from the truck; his left leg was pinned beneath the exhaust stack on the left side of the truck. Vaughn's injuries have required several surgical procedures.

The tire on the left front wheel of the dump truck--referred to as the accident tire--was a Michelin 12.00 R20 XZY steel-belted radial truck tire. Plaintiffs sued Michelin on the theory of strict liability in tort, specifically alleging that the tire had been defectively manufactured. Plaintiffs claimed that a manufacturing defect had, over a period of time, caused a separation of the several belts, or plies, which lie under the tread of the tire. Eventually, the outer belts became completely detached from the casing of the tire. At that point, there was no support for the sidewall of the tire, "the inner tube [came] through," and a blowout occurred.

Defendants Michelin admitted they sold the tire, but denied that it failed because of a manufacturing defect. Michelin contended that the proper air pressure had not been maintained in the tire; this "underinflation" or "overdeflection" caused the belts to separate because of an excessive heat buildup within the tire. Michelin suggested that the reason for the underinflation was that the tire had been partially penetrated by a nail or other foreign object.

Michelin has briefed and argued four assignments of error in this court. The record presented is diffuse and in some respects difficult to follow. Much of the expert testimony involved the use of exhibits, but in many instances the testimony was not correlated with the exhibit. And, aside from such considerations, a great deal of evidence, including some which is not altogether clear to the court, was received in the course of the 9-day trial. To the extent possible on the record presented, we have confined ourselves to a recitation of those facts and consideration of those issues essential and necessary to an orderly disposition of the appeal. See Bloomfield Reorganized School District No. R-14 v. Stites, 336 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo.1960); Southwest Engineering Company v. Reorganized School District R-9, 434 S.W.2d 743, 746 (Mo.App.1968).

A pretrial conference was held in this case, and two matters taken up during that conference are of primary interest on this appeal. During the discovery process, plaintiffs had served interrogatories on Spanish Michelin including one which required Spanish Michelin to disclose "[a] general description of the tire's composition, tread design, and anticipated use." Michelin replied that the tire was composed of: 1 radial steel carcass ply; 2 half belts (steel); 2 working belts; 1 protector belt; 2 bead bundles; 2 bead stiffeners, and "[v]arious rubber compounds both natural and synthetic."

About 10 months before trial plaintiffs had also requested production of documents showing the design specifications of the Michelin 12.00 R20 XZY tire. Spanish Michelin resisted this request on the ground that the design specifications constituted trade secrets. The court heard argument on the motion for production and finally concluded that the design specifications of the 12.00 R20 XZY tire were indeed trade secrets. The court refused to require Michelin to disclose the design specifications of the 12.00 R20 XZY tire.

Before the pretrial conference was concluded, counsel for the plaintiffs elicited a stipulation from counsel for Michelin. ¹ The court inquired:

"Any other objections to the opening graphics?

MR. STRONG: If they're through with mine, I need--do need one stipulation here for Paul's.

He has a new tire, not the accident tire, but a new tire that he's going to use and I'm going to use a section of it in opening statement.

And I just want to be sure that we all understand that that new tire is the same size, construction, design, and that it's a duplicate of this tire that is in this lawsuit.

Is that right Paul?

MR. BRADSHAW: Yes, it is.

But when you're going to say you're going to use it in your opening statement, I specifically said a minute ago that I'm not going to produce it for you to use in your opening statement.

* * *

* * *

MR. STRONG: ... In all fairness, if they--if this is going to be an exhibit in the case and if it is going to be used by them in opening statement, we ought to have a right to explain, also. I'll be happy to give credit to the jury. I'm not going to say, 'Hey, look what we have'--

MR. BRADSHAW: We can settle this in a hurry, then. I just won't use it in my opening statement, and I--we won't produce it until my case.

I thought you might like to refer to it during your case. If you want to use it then, and I can in opening statement, you can.

Otherwise, we'll make up our minds when we get to our case whether we'll use it.

MR. STRONG: All right. Well, we'll let the Court rule on the two positions.

We want to use it in opening statement, whether Paul uses it or not. It's an exhibit that will be used at the trial, and we want to use it. It's here and the statement I made about the stipulation is correct, is it not, Paul?

MR. BRADSHAW: About what stipulation?

MR. STRONG: That it is an exact duplicate of the make and model of our tire?

MR. BRADSHAW: Yes.

MR. STRONG: And so, if it is and it will be an exhibit, we have a right to use it in opening statement. We so request.

* * *

* * *

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to rule that the plaintiff will not be permitted to use it in opening statement...." (Emphasis added.)

The exhibit concerning which the stipulation was made was referred to as defendants' exhibit C at trial. It was a 12.00 R20 XZY tire from which parts of the tread and carcass had been cut away to expose the arrangement of each steel belt (there are four layers) and the alignment of the cords which form each belt. Exhibit C will be discussed in more detail presently.

The case proceeded to trial the following week and, in opening statement, plaintiffs' counsel explained to the jury his theory of defect. Though no direct use of exhibit C could be made because of the court's pretrial ruling, counsel demonstrated that the top steel belt on exhibit C consisted of cords that "crisscrossed" those of the underlying belt. He then noted that the top belt on the accident tire had cords that did not "crisscross" and explained that such a belt lay up eventually caused separation between the plies and ultimate destruction of the tire. Essentially, counsel inferred...