Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. V. Martinez Essay Sample

Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez
Briefly explain the opinion. Which of Martinez's claims were successful and which were not? Why (what was the court's legal explanation)?
In this case, Martinez brought forward three claims.First, he claimed strict product liability based on defective design of the tire. Martinez also claimed negligence and gross negligence. In their ruling, the jury found that the defective design of the tire contributed towards the Martinez injuries. The jury did not find Ford and Budd guilty of producing defective rims; however, the jury argued that Goodrich was not only guilty of not only negligence but also gross negligence that contributed towards Martinez injuries.
Goodrich was found unreasonable for not designing a tire that was more resistant to breakage especially since a stronger brand was already in existence and other manufacturers were already using it. In addition to this, the fact that there were similarly reported accidents involving the same product and the fact that Goodrich was aware of a design defect and the expert opinion contributed to Martinez successful claim of defective design. However, this evidence was not enough to prove that there was gross negligence on the part of the manufacturer in this case; Martinez successfully proved that Goodrich was liable for negligence that contributed to his injuries.
As far as the claim of contributory negligence is concerned, Martinez failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he had done everything in his capacity to prevent himself from harm. The court argued that there were clear warnings on the tire but the plaintiff; Martinez ignored these warnings and hence is partly to blame for the injuries he suffered. This is proof enough of his negligence. On the other hand, the court found Goodrich liable for the injuries suffered by Martinez. Although they had put warning on the product, they had showed negligence in the fact that they failed to adopt the new bead in manufacturing while other tire manufacturing companies were using them.2) What types of damages was Martinez able to collect and which were rejected by the court?
Martinezand his family were awarded actual damages totaling to$5.5 millionand in actual $11.5 million in punitive damages. However, punitive damages were reduced to one times of the actual damages awarded following an agreement made between the involved parties. Furthermore, the total damages were also reduced by $1.4 million and a prejudgment interest was also imposed by the court.
3) In the discussion of the strict product liability claim, the court refers to a number of other cases to support its rationale. In particular, the court refers to the Caterpillar, Hagan’s, and Turner cases. Please read one of these cases and briefly explain why it is useful to the court in making a decision on Martinez's case.
Gonzales v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.,571 S.W.2d 867, 871-72 (Tex.1978) was used in Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez to emphasize that in order to show conduct of one party caused injury to another party, the plaintiff in this case Martinez must present evidence of cause and further prove that the foreseeable risks were not considered. In this case, evidence produced proved that the conduct of Goodrich was the proximate cause of the accident because of their negligence and failure to manage the foreseeable danger. Following that evidence was enough to prove the gross negligence of Goodrich, the court found Goodrich 100% liable for Martinez injuries due to their conduct and omissions.4) Finally, briefly explain why the dissenting judges disagree with the outcome of the majority opinion.
The dissenting judges argue that although the tire contained warnings that if followed would have prevented the accident; Martinez injuries, this evidence is not enough to conclude that the tire was safe. This argument was made by comparing the strength of the warning given versus other evidence presented in court. First and foremost, they based their argument on the fact that Goodrich’s competitors had already adopted the use of the new bead as early as 1980 implying that the new bead was better and safer. However, Goodrich only adopted the use of the new bead in 1991 after they had produced a tire that had injured Martinez. This evidence formed the basis of the argument that although Martinez had failed to follow warning given and hence contributing to his own injuries, the product by Goodrich had a defect and the warning was not enough to keep Martinez from harm.