This case stems from a tire blowout that occurred while Plaintiff Kenneth Harris was at work driving his employer’s truck, which was outfitted with tires manufactured by Defendant Michelin North America. That tire blowout caused Harris’s truck to flip multiple times, resulting in injuries to his “neck, back, hip, arm, elbow, and head.”
Causation is a central issue. The parties disagree about what—and who—caused the blowout. Harris contended that the blowout was caused by a manufacturing defect attributable to MNA.
To support his theory, Harris relies on expected testimony from expert Brian Darr, who in his report presented three possible theories to explain the tire blowout: (1) the “Trapped Air” theory, positing that the blowout was caused by air trapped between the belts of the tire, which could only be caused by a manufacturing defect (2) the “Open Inner Liner Splice” theory, positing that an open inner-liner splice caused the blowout, and that the tire must have left the manufacturing facility with the open splice and (3) the “Thin Inner Liner” theory, positing that the tire’s inner liner was too thin when it left the manufacturing facility, which caused Harris’s accident. MNA argued that Brian Darr’s proposed testimony did not satisfy Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
MNA also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which argued Harris has failed to point to sufficient evidence, expert or otherwise, “to create a fact issue regarding any claim asserted against MNA.”
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness
Brian Darr has over 25 years of extensive experience with tires including failure analysis, design, development, manufacturing, quality investigation, race tire preparation, and testing of tires at numerous testing facilities. He worked in a tire manufacturing facility as a plant technical engineer where he investigated quality related issues, and in a Research & Development (R & D) center where he designed, developed, tested, and analyzed tires. Darr has visited numerous tire production plants such as Goodyear, Bridgestone, Michelin, and Continental tire.
Darr is a graduate of The Ohio State University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Discussion by the Court
The Court held a hearing on April 30, 2024, where Darr testified regarding his three theories. At that hearing, Harris withdrew Darr’s Thin Inner Liner theory (theory number three), and the Court ordered supplemental briefing on Darr’s remaining Trapped Air and Open Inner Liner theories. The parties filed their supplemental briefs and Darr submitted a supplemental report. However, in response to Harris’s supplemental filings, MNA filed its Objection and Motion to Strike Darr’s Second Report, arguing that Darr had impermissibly updated his sources and expert theories.
Finally, on June 26, 2024, the Court held a hearing regarding Darr’s testimony and the status of the case, which all parties attended through counsel. All currently pending motions have been thoroughly briefed and discussed; they are ripe for adjudication. The central motion at this juncture is MNA’s Motion to Exclude Brian Darr under Daubert and Rule of Evidence 702, because MNA’s Motion for Summary Judgment rests on an argument regarding Harris’s expert evidence.
The Parties’ Motions to File Supplemental Briefs are Granted, and Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Brian Darr is Granted in Part and Denied in Part
Defendant MNA’s Motion to Strike is granted as to Darr’s Open Inner Liner Splice theory because Plaintiff Harris has failed to establish this theory’s reliability
The Court held that the Open Inner Liner Splice theory fails the fourth Daubert factor—general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. This is because Darr failed to sufficiently consider or rule out that a prior impact, rather than a manufacturing defect, might have caused the opening in the tire’s inner liner over time.
Darr invoked the process of elimination to reach his conclusion that a manufacturing defect caused the open inner-liner splice. Thus, because he “determined that the open inner liner splice was not as a result of impact or over deflection,” “a manufacturing defect [w]as the only possible explanation for why there was an open inner liner splice.” But there is a problem with Darr’s premise that excludes an impact as a possible cause of the splice.
Here, there is evidence of a prior impact, specifically a “V” shaped area on the tire carcass. Darr summarily discounted this as evidence of a possible impact because the “V” shaped area “is not consistent with real-world impact testing results so as to be considered evidence of an actual impact that could cause an inner liner splice to open.” The real-world impact test Darr cited to support this conclusion, however, is a single impact-analysis study at odds with the consensus of experts within the tire industry.
Darr, in other words, ruled out and failed to otherwise consider an impact as a possible cause of the open inner-liner splice based on this lone eight-tire study that runs against the expert consensus.
Darr’s Trapped Air theory, on the other hand, fares better for Harris because Darr sufficiently explained the basis for the theory
Darr cited the existence of trapped air in the subject vehicle’s companion tires, compared the “trapped air in the subject tires to peer reviewed documents containing images of trapped air,” and examined the structure and wear patterns of the tires to conclude that the subject tire contained trapped air. The Court found this analysis sufficiently reliable.
Defendant MNA’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike the Declaration and Second Supplemental Report of Brian Darr are Moot
Because MNA’s motion for summary judgment invokes the asserted insufficiency of Harris’ expert evidence, the Motion was effectively declared moot in light of this order. The Court cannot parse the motion to determine which portions of it remain at issue. The Court, however, allowed MNA to file an amended motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, if desired. Likewise, Defendant MNA’s objection to post hearing evidence and motion to strike declaration and second supplemental report of Brian Darr were also declared moot. As discussed at the June 26 hearing, the Court held that MNA may redepose Darr for up to three hours via videoconference regarding any of Darr’s Trapped Air Theory sources or conclusions that MNA feels were improperly used in Darr’s supplemental report.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant MNA’s motion to exclude the testimony of Brian Darr.
Key Takeaways:
- Darr should’ve considered that a potential impact might cause the open inner-liner splice over time, or he should have further explained why an impact could not the type of blow out seen here. Instead, he dismissed a potential impact as a possible cause based on a lone study at odds with the industry-expert consensus. The Court held that his failure to further engage with a potential impact as a possible cause required, at a minimum, more discussion.
- Defendant MNA contended that the trapped air theory did not meet the requisite standard because the subject tire was missing a steel band, trapped air could develop over time, and the published literature contradicted Darr’s theories. The Court held that these arguments did not carry the day because Darr’s report pointed to evidence sufficient to credit his trapped air theory at that stage.
Court Details:
| Case Caption: | Harris V. Michelin North America, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 5:23cv527 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Texas Western |
| Order Date: | August 12, 2024 |
Leave a Reply