Logan v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Company
Filing
186
OPINION & ORDER: The Court ORDERS that Cooper Tire's motion for partial summary judgment 157 is GRANTED and plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 6/10/2011.(GLD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-03-KSF
KIM LOGAN, as Legal Guardian for
JAMES O. GUMM, JR.
PLAINTIFF
and
KENTUCKY CABINET FOR
HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES
INTERVENING PLAINTIFF
and
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
AND KENTUCKY MEDICAL SERVICES
FOUNDATION
v.
INTERVENING PLAINTIFF
OPINION & ORDER
COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
DEFENDANT
** *** **** *
This matter is before the Court upon the motion [DE #157] of the defendant, Cooper Tire &
Rubber Company (“Cooper Tire”), for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. This motion is fully briefed
and is ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, Cooper Tire’s motion will be granted.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a one-vehicle automobile accident which occurred on Interstate 64
in Montgomery County, Kentucky on February 12, 2009. At the time of the accident, James O.
Gumm, Jr. was driving a 1994 Chevrolet C2500 pickup truck that he had purchased as a used vehicle
in 2007. At that time, the vehicle had 137,464 miles on it. While he was driving westbound in the
left lane, the left rear tire of his truck failed. The subject tire was manufactured by Cooper Tire in
2002, and had approximately 71,000 miles on it.
As a result of the tire failure, Gumm turned the wheel to the right and applied his brakes,
forcing the truck off the right side of the interstate. The truck slammed into a rock wall, flipped over,
and landed back on the roadway. At the time of the accident, Gumm was not wearing his seat belt
and he was talking on his cell phone. Toxicology tests confirmed the presence of THC (a marijuana
metabolite), oxycodone, and oxymorphone in his urine. Syringes were found at the scene of the
accident, and other drug paraphernalia was found on his person at the hospital. Gumm was rendered
a brain-injured quadriplegic as a result of the accident.
This products liability action was subsequently filed by Kim Logan, Gumm’s legal guardian,
on January 4, 2010 [DE #1]. The plaintiff alleges that the tire on Gumm’s truck failed as the result
of a design defect resulting in tread belt separation. The plaintiff asserts claims for strict liability,
negligence, breach of implied and express warranties, and failure to warn of known and foreseeable
risks. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injury, permanent impairment of earning
capacity, past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. Cooper Tire
has filed this motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim.
II.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Rule 56(a) entitles a moving party to summary judgment if that party “shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Rule 56(c)(1) further instructs that “[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed
2
must support the assertion” by citing to the record or “showing that the materials cited do not
establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact.” In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court
must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
The “moving party bears the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issues of material
fact.” Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 483 (6th Cir. 2008). The moving party may
meet this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence concerning an essential element of the
nonmovant’s claim on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has satisfied its burden, the nonmoving party must “do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586, it must produce specific facts showing that a genuine issue remains.
Plant v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 929, 934 (6th Cir. 2000). If, after reviewing the record in its
entirety, a rational fact finder could not find for the nonmoving party, summary judgment should be
granted. Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 349 (6th Cir. 1998).
Moreover, the trial court is not required to “search the entire record to establish that it is
bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.” Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80
(6th Cir. 1989). Rather, “the nonmoving party has an affirmative duty to direct the court’s attention
to those specific portions of the record upon which it seeks to rely to create a genuine issue of
material fact.” In re Morris, 260 F.3d 654, 665 (6th Cir. 2001).
3
III.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Punitive damages are available under Kentucky law if a plaintiff proves by clear and
convincing evidence that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice. KRS 411.184(2). In
addition, punitive damages may be awarded where “gross negligence” is shown. Williams v. Wilson,
972 S.W.2d 260, 262-65 (Ky. 1998). In Kentucky, the “prevailing understanding defines gross
negligence as a ‘wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of other persons.’ It is not necessary that
the jury find the defendant to have acted with express malice; rather, it is possible that a certain
course of conduct can be so outrageous that malice can be implied from the facts of the situation.”
Kinney v. Butcher, 131 S.W.3d 357, 359 (Ky. App. 2009)(citation omitted). Clear and convincing
evidence means “evidence substantially more persuasive than a preponderance of evidence but not
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fitch v. Burns, 782 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Ky. 1999). This burden of proof
applies even at the summary judgment stage. Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1477
(6th Cir. 1989).
A.
THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
The plaintiff alleges that Cooper Tire consciously ignored dangerous design defects in the
subject tire. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that Cooper Tire knew its product was defective, and
that the defects resulted in an unusually high rate of tread belt separations. According to the plaintiff,
Cooper Tire failed to employ reasonable design measures to prevent tread separation, including
effective alternative designs such as belt edge gum strips (“BEGS”).
The plaintiff, in making her argument in support of punitive damages, analyzes the factors
to be used by the trier of fact to determine the amount of punitive damages. See KRS § 411.186(2).
These factors are not necessarily relevant in the analysis of whether punitive damages should be
4
awarded in the first place under KRS 411.184(2). Nevertheless, relying on the first factor, likelihood
of serious harm, the plaintiff contends that tread separations are dangerous events which pose a
significant risk of serious bodily injury or death. The second factor is the degree of the defendant’s
awareness. The plaintiff argues that Cooper Tire became aware of a company-wide tread separation
problem sometime in 1994, and points to various internal documents apparently acknowledging a
problem and discussing the effectiveness of BEGS as an alternative design. The plaintiff argues that
the third factor, profitability of the conduct to the defendant, resulted in Cooper Tire’s decision not
to incorporate the design change. The fourth factor is the duration of the conduct. According to the
plaintiff, Cooper Tire knew of the increasing trend of tread separation in its products for over a
decade leading up to the manufacture of the subject tire. The fifth and final factor relied upon by the
plaintiff is the action by the defendant to remedy the conduct. The plaintiff contends that despite
Cooper Tire’s knowledge of the problem and of a solution, Cooper Tire chose not to approve the
addition of BEGS.
In its defense, Cooper Tire contends that punitive damages are not available in this case
because its design decision to not include BEGS in the subject tire was not outrageous through fraud,
oppression, malice or gross negligence. Even if the plaintiff is able to show that this alternative was
safer and more cost effective, Cooper Tire argues that this proof does not amount to the outrageous
conduct required to justify punitive damages. In short, Cooper Tire contends that the plaintiff has
not come forward with admissible, constitutional, and clear and convincing evidence that Cooper
Tire acted outrageously and maliciously toward the plaintiff.
5
B.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Even viewing the admissible evidence and making all reasonable inferences in a light most
favorable to the plaintiff, the Court finds that Cooper Tire is entitled to summary judgment on the
plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Essentially, this boils down to a design choice made by Cooper
Tire concerning the amount of rubber between the tire’s steel belts. While there is no industry
standard or regulations setting forth the amount of rubber that must be present, Federal safety
standards specify performance criteria. Cooper Tire elected to design the subject tire without BEGS
and instead opted for another option known as unbalanced calendaring. The subject tire met or
exceeded all Federal and industry safety testing requirements and the plaintiff’s tire expert, Troy
Cottles ,could not point to any regulatory test, industry, or Cooper Tire specification that the subject
tire failed to meet. Compliance with regulatory testing requirements weighs against a claim for
punitive damages. Cameron v. Daimlerchrysler, 2005 WL 2674990, *9 (E.D.Ky 2005).
To the extent that the plaintiff points to internal Cooper Tire documents acknowledging
problems with tread separation, this evidence does not amount to the outrageous or malicious
conduct necessary to justify punitive damages. This evidence was created in the normal course and
evolution of the design and manufacturing process. Cooper Tire has presented evidence that it has
tested and evaluated alternative designs, including BEGS, and made an informed decision to utilize
unbalanced calendaring on many tires, including the subject tire. While evidence of Cooper Tire’s
knowledge of tread separation problems may support the plaintiff’s design defect claim, it does not
rise to the level of outrageous or malicious conduct necessary to support a claim for punitive
damages.
6
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court, being fully and sufficiently advised, hereby
ORDERS that Cooper Tire’s motion for partial summary judgment [DE #157] is GRANTED and
the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is hereby DISMISSED.
This June 10, 2011.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?