Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 30, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court
A design defect case arose after a Ford Explorer rolled over due to tire tread separation, resulting in the death of Diane Wiles. Ford Motor Co. appealed the trial court’s judgment favoring the Wiles family, which included claims made by James Wiles and others. Ford argued five points: (1) insufficient evidence linked the accident to a design defect in the vehicle and that the proposed alternative design would have prevented it; (2) the trial court incorrectly denied a request for a twelve-person jury; (3) refusal of specific jury instructions; and (4) errors in the damages awarded for Diane Wiles’s death. The appellate court determined the evidence did not adequately support the jury's finding of a design defect or the efficacy of the suggested alternative design, leading to a reversal of the trial court’s judgment. The background details included the Wiles family’s trip and the events leading to the accident, with the jury concluding that the tire was not defective and assigning shared fault among the parties involved. The trial court had awarded the Wiles family over $7 million based on the jury's findings. The appellate court emphasized the standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence in its analysis.
Evidence is legally sufficient if more than a scintilla supports a finding, meaning it must provide a reasonable basis for differing conclusions on a vital fact. A scintilla of evidence merely creates suspicion and is not considered legal evidence. Under Section 82.005 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, a claimant alleging a design defect must prove by a preponderance of evidence that there was a safer alternative design and that the defect caused the injury or damage claimed. A "safer alternative design" must likely prevent or significantly reduce risk without substantially impairing the product's utility and must be economically and technologically feasible at the time the product left the manufacturer.
In the case at hand, the Wileses contended that a design defect in handling the Explorer caused it to roll out of control when the tire delaminated. Their expert, Dr. David Renfroe, testified that the issue stemmed from "tramp" in the rear axle, causing the vehicle to become unsteerable. Tramp occurs when one wheel bounces, affecting the opposite wheel due to a solid axle, which can lead to reduced traction and instability. Renfroe explained that this phenomenon could also happen during tire delamination, where an unbalanced tire could create significant forces that lead to instability and skidding. He supported his assertions with video evidence showing the Explorer experiencing tramp and skate at high speeds when the tire delaminated. The jury was presented with a video demonstrating these effects at approximately seventy-two miles per hour, allowing for a reasonable conclusion that the vehicle exhibited tramp and skate during the incident.
Renfroe developed a test simulating the effects of a delaminating tire at high speeds by using a 'lumped-tire test,' which involved modifying a tire with three blocks of tread to mimic the upward force of a delaminating tire. He demonstrated that this test vehicle, driven at twenty miles per hour, exhibited handling issues similar to those of an Explorer with a delaminating tire at sixty or seventy miles per hour. Renfroe testified that Ford was aware of the Explorer's handling problems compared to other SUVs and had received numerous complaints in regions with poor road conditions, such as Australia and Venezuela. In response, Ford made modifications to shock absorbers in these markets, replacing standard shock absorbers with stiffer ones and relocating them closer to the wheels, which significantly improved handling.
Despite knowing since at least 1996 that these modifications would reduce skate, Ford did not recommend similar changes for Explorers sold in the U.S. A 1997 document acknowledged that shock absorber adjustments had improved handling but noted ongoing issues with frame flexibility. Renfroe asserted that if Ford had implemented these modifications on the Wileses’ Explorer, the accident leading to Diane Wiles’s death could have been avoided, emphasizing that the cost of the stiffer shock absorbers was equivalent to the standard ones.
Ford countered that Renfroe's testimony lacked a factual basis, arguing that expert opinions must be supported by evidence rather than mere assertions. The Texas Supreme Court has held that a claim cannot solely rely on the statements of a qualified witness without proper support. Ultimately, the appellees failed to provide sufficient evidence for a safer alternative design, as Renfroe's claims regarding the impact of the alternate shock absorber arrangement on accident prevention were unsupported by concrete evidence.
Renfroe did not provide evidence that tests on delaminating tires with an alternate shock absorber arrangement were conducted. He failed to demonstrate that his lumped-tire test simulated conditions relevant to the accident or that driving on rough roads generated forces comparable to those from tire delamination at high speed. His assertion that issues of tramp and skate during rough driving would be resolved by an alternate shock absorber arrangement lacked foundation. The case involved not only tire delamination but also a flat tire and wheel gouging the pavement, conditions not addressed by Renfroe's tests. His claim that the stiffer shock absorbers would have prevented a rollover when the rear tire went flat was unsupported. Although he stated that the Explorer would not have gone out of control or that Diane Wiles would not have died with the alternate shock absorbers, these claims were deemed baseless and insufficient to establish a design defect. Consequently, the evidence presented by the Wileses did not support a finding of a safer alternative design, leading to the conclusion that the jury's finding of a design defect was without merit. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the Wileses were awarded nothing. Additionally, issues regarding the jury's responsibility percentage findings and the exclusion of Renfroe's expert testimony were noted, but not further pursued due to the resolution of the primary issue. The indication that the tire would have gone flat regardless of the vehicle's position was also highlighted, as it was not addressed by Renfroe.
