Montano ex rel. Montano v. Lee Tire & Rubber Co.
Docket: No. 2 CA-CV 94-0314
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; April 13, 1995; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Celina Montano, an eight-year-old passenger, was severely injured in a rollover accident caused by a tire blowout, resulting in initial damages assessed at over $5 million. Due to her grandparents' 40% fault, her recovery was reduced to $3.1 million. Lee Tire Rubber Company appealed, arguing evidentiary errors and excessive damages. Montano cross-appealed, asserting that a default judgment should have been entered for discovery violations. The court affirmed the trial's decision, noting that a plaintiff's expert testified the blowout resulted from a manufacturing defect, while the defendant's expert attributed it to a road hazard. Testimony from a Discount Tire employee about frequent returns of defective Lee tires was deemed relevant despite Lee's objections about its speculative nature, as it provided context for understanding manufacturing defects. The trial court excluded evidence of prior allegations against Discount Tire and Montano's grandparents, asserting that admitting this would unnecessarily complicate the trial without substantial probative value. Lee Tire's argument regarding the $5,177,000 award being excessive was rejected, as the severe impact on Montano's quality of life justified the damages despite her medical expenses being only $120,000. Lastly, Montano's cross-appeal for a default judgment due to Lee Tire's delay in producing test results was denied. The jury was instructed to consider any misconduct, which the court found sufficient. The court concluded that the discovery violation did not prejudice the establishment of liability, affirming the trial court's decisions.