Dico Tire, Inc. v. Cisneros

Roger Cisneros (plaintiff) was repairing a tire made by Dico Tire, Inc. (defendant) when it exploded in his face. Cisneros sued Dico Tire for negligence and products liability due to manufacturing defects and design defects. Walter Harm, a tire engineer with 31 years’ experience, testified about the design, manufacture, and testing of tire products. He testified that a hang-up of a defective bead caused Cisneros’s accident, and that he could see and feel the defect in the bead. Harm testified that the tire blew off the flange due to a weak spot that could not withstand the pressures exerted. Harm stated that Dico Tire did not use one of the three standard methods the tire industry used to reduce explosions while not decreasing the tire’s utility. Harm also felt and saw dishouts along the circumference of the tire, meaning that the bead was defective when the tire left Dico Tire’s possession. Harm testified that the risk of injury could be reduced by visually and manually inspecting each tire, because defective tires would be rejected before leaving Dico Tire’s possession. Harm testified that if Dico Tire had operated in an ordinary and prudent manner, it would have inspected finished tires, the defect could have been found during a hand inspection, and the tire at issue would have been rejected. Harm believed the tire was unreasonably dangerous as designed and manufactured. Other witnesses corroborated Harm’s testimony. The jury found that design and manufacturing defects in the tire were producing causes of Cisneros’s injuries and that Dico Tire’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The jury also found that Cisneros was not negligent. Dico Tire appealed.