Woelfel v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

• Citation: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1361,493 So.2d 472
• Decision Date: 17 June 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-817,85-817
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1361 William J. WOELFEL, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Mary O. Woelfel, deceased, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., Ford Motor Co., Flamingo Ford, Robert Jackson and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., Appellees/Cross Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 472

493 So.2d 472

11 Fla. L. Weekly 1361

William J. WOELFEL, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Mary O. Woelfel, deceased, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., Ford Motor Co., Flamingo Ford, Robert Jackson and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., Appellees/Cross Appellants.

No. 85-817.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

June 17, 1986.

Mark J. Feldman, Daniels & Hicks and Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellant/cross appellee.

Magill & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, McGuire, Woods & Battle and William H. King, Jr. and Kenneth J. Moran, Richmond, Va., for appellees/cross appellants.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff William J. Woelfel, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Mary O. Woelfel, from a final judgment entered after a jury verdict in a wrongful death, strict liability in tort action against the defendant Firestone Tire and Rubber Company [Firestone] and other defendants. The jury found for the plaintiff Woelfel, but also found the plaintiff twenty-five percent comparatively negligent in the automobile accident sued upon in which a defective tire manufactured by the defendant Firestone had blown out on the plaintiff's automobile. The jury awarded the plaintiff (a) $1,000,000 in compensatory damages as against all defendants, reduced to $750,000 by virtue of the plaintiff's twenty-five percent comparative negligence, and (b) $6,500,000 in punitive damages as against the defendant Firestone. The trial court then granted the defendant Firestone's post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict, set aside the $6,500,000 punitive damages award, and entered judgment for the plaintiff for $750,000 plus costs. The plaintiff appeals the order setting aside the punitive damages award; the defendant Firestone cross appeals certain evidentiary rulings made during trial. We affirm.

First, as to the main appeal, we conclude that the trial court was correct in setting aside the punitive damages award for the reasons given by the court in the above-stated post-trial order:

"1. Plaintiff sought punitive damages against FIRESTONE on the basis that FIRESTONE had actual knowledge of a defect in Plaintiff's tire, and willfully, deliberately and intentionally failed to warn of the unreasonable risk of harm in the use of that tire. Complaint, Count V.

2. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court determines that:

a. The tire at issue is an ER78-14 steel belted radial passenger tire manufactured at FIRESTONE'S Wilson, North Carolina, plant during the 30th week of 1976 pursuant to a manufacturing specification placed in evidence;

b. That there is no evidence or any permissible, proper or reasonable inference from the evidence that FIRESTONE had knowledge of a defect in the tire at issue, and that Plaintiff's evidence in this regard related to different tires manufactured to different specifications containing different compounds and ingredients;

c. Even if this Court were to infer the existence of such knowledge by FIRESTONE, there is no evidence or any permissible, proper or reasonable inference from the evidence that FIRESTONE failed to take measures to inform affected users to return their tires for replacement, or otherwise...