Case: Cooper tire & RUbber v Mendez (the Legal Environment of Businees) Mendez w
ID: 407967 • Letter: C
Question
Case: Cooper tire & RUbber v Mendez (the Legal Environment of Businees) Mendez was driving a minivan with 6 passangers when a rear tire made by Coope tire lost its tread. Mendez lost control and rooled the minivan. 4 passangers were killed. Examination of the tire showed that a nail punctured it. The surviviors sued Cooper for product defect. A jury awarded over $11 million in damage; the appeals court affirmed. Cooper appealed.
1) the Texas high court held that the expert testimony relied upon by the plantiffs to establish their case was not reliable. Why did the court not order a new trial?
2) The jury believed the expert testimony prsented for plantiffs. Why did their judgment not stand?
Explanation / Answer
1. The court didn’t ordered a new trial because the tire report shows that it got punctured due to nail and it was not fault of manufacturer if no nail was found in the tire and the bust of tire has happened without any external factor then one can sue cooper.
2. Their judgment did not stand because the tire got punctured with an external element which is not the fault of manufacturer so the cooper is not liable to pay the amount for damage.