Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court of a decision by the court of appeals that reversed a significant jury verdict against Continental AG. The plaintiffs, Christine and Thomas Morden, sued Continental for negligence and strict liability following an accident that rendered Christine quadriplegic, alleging the accident was caused by defective tires. The jury initially found Continental negligent, attributing 50% of the accident's cause to Christine's driving negligence. However, the strict liability verdict was deemed inconsistent. The circuit court awarded the Mordens over $6 million in damages. The court of appeals reversed this, finding insufficient evidence of negligence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated the jury's negligence finding, ruling that credible evidence supported the claim that Continental breached its duty by failing to prevent tire separation, a known issue. The court upheld the exclusion of evidence regarding a prior settlement with Volkswagen, concluding it did not affect the trial's fairness. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, affirming the circuit court's judgment supporting the jury's negligence verdict against Continental, and did not address the strict liability claim due to the resolution of the negligence issue.
Legal Issues Addressed
Duty of Care in Product Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that Continental owed a duty of care to the Mordens, as credible evidence suggested Continental was aware of tire separation risks.
Reasoning: The jury was justified in determining that Continental owed a duty of care to the Mordens.
Exclusion of Settlement Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The circuit court's exclusion of evidence regarding a covenant not to sue was upheld, as it did not prejudice the trial outcome.
Reasoning: The court found that this exclusion did not impair the jury's ability to hear relevant testimony and distinguishes this case from others where exclusion of evidence warranted a new trial.
Negligence in Product Design and Manufacturesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Continental was negligent in the design and manufacture of the tires due to the use of a single-wrap cap splice, which failed to prevent tire separation.
Reasoning: The jury could determine that Continental's failure to utilize a double-wrap cap splice reflected a lack of ordinary care, despite the absence of testing on the single-wrap cap splice.
Standard of Review for Jury Verdictssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized the narrow standard of review, focused on credible evidence supporting the jury's verdict, allowing for deference to the jury's findings.
Reasoning: A jury's decision will be affirmed if there is any credible evidence present, even if contradicted by stronger evidence.
Strict Liability for Defective Productssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The strict liability claim was found defective due to inconsistent juror responses, but it was noted that the tires were defectively dangerous when they left Continental's possession.
Reasoning: For the strict liability claim, the jury found that the tires were defectively dangerous when they left Continental's possession, with 10 jurors supporting this conclusion and 2 dissenting.