Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • S
  • Sumerel v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Sumerel v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Sumerel v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Colorado Court of Appeals
232 P.3d 128 (2009)



Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) (defendant) was found liable in a products liability action instituted by several families, including Sumerel, and two entities (collectively Plaintiffs). The jury awarded Plaintiffs $1.3 million in damages and “other costs and losses.” Additionally, the jury found Goodyear 36 percent responsible for the “other costs and losses” suffered by two families and 48 percent responsible for the “other costs and losses” suffered by two other families. The trial court declined to award pre-judgment interest on the “other costs and losses” awarded to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision not to make such an award. Goodyear appealed the award of “other costs and losses” damages. A division of the court of appeals upheld the trial court’s award of “other costs and losses” to Plaintiffs and further held that Plaintiffs were entitled to pre-judgment interest on those damages. The division remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of the proper accrual dates for the award of pre-judgment interest on “other costs and losses” and to calculate the award. Thereafter, attorneys for both sides entered into negotiations to reach an agreement as to the accrual dates and resulting award amount. Although counsel for both parties easily reached an agreement as to the proper accrual dates, the attorneys calculated the award amount differently. Co-counsel for Goodyear sent charts and calculations to Plaintiffs’ co-counsel which was later determined to be an overstatement of damages due by more than $550,000. Goodyear’s co-counsel had assessed Goodyear’s liability at 100 percent as opposed to 36 percent and 48 percent, respectively. Plaintiffs’ took co-counsel’s amount as an “offer” and accepted it. When Goodyear’s co-counsel realized his error, he attempted to correct the calculation. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the purported “settlement agreement.” The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and Goodyear appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Gabriel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial