A Texas jury has ordered Michelin North America Inc. to
pay nearly $12 million in a case involving a 2006 tire-related
accident in Mexico that left six people dead and a 10-year-old
boy permanently paralyzed. The accident, which occurred
Dec. 31, 2006, near Matamoros, Mexico, involved a 2002
Ford F-150 pickup truck that was involved in a head-on crash
when a Michelin-made BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A tire size
285/75R16, load range D - on the truck allegedly suffered a
tread separation. The truck, driven by Jesus Guzman Reyes,
swerved into the path of a Chevrolet Suburban driven by Ariel
Flores. Mr. Flores, his wife, their two sons and two other boys
were killed, and Mr. Reyes’ son Jesus Guzman, then 10 years
old, was left paralyzed. Michelin maintains the evidence shows
the tire did not fail before the accident but was damaged in the
accident. The case was heard before the 197th Judicial District
Court, Willacy County, Texas.
Attorneys for the plaintiff families argued that:
- The tire design was inherently defective
- A leak in the roof at Michelin’s Tuscaloosa, Ala., tire
plant had damaged the equipment used to make the
tire; and
- Michelin had failed to warn potential buyers of the
defect in the tires.
Attorneys for Greenville, S.C.-based Michelin argued that
the tire on the Guzmans’ truck met all applicable federal
safety standards, and that Mr. Reyes was speeding at the
time of the accident. Jose Lopez, Owner of the truck driven
by Jesus Guzman Reyes, also had not properly cared for the
truck or the tires, the company contended. Surviving relatives
of the Flores family and their passengers received about
$6.5 million of the damages in the verdict. Jesus Guzman,
however, received the largest single amount-$4 millionwith
his relatives receiving slightly less than $1.5 million in
aggregate. Michelin and the plaintiffs’ attorneys entered into
a confidential “High-Low” agreement before the jury verdict,
according to Mikal Watts, an attorney representing the Flores
family. This means the parties agreed to upper and lower
limits for damages and waived their rights to appeal, he said.
A Michelin spokeswoman reiterated the company’s position
that the tire was not defective. “We are convinced, and the
tire forensics clearly show, that the tire failed as a result of
the collision,” she said. ‘The evidence shows not that the tire
failed before the crash, but that the damage to the tire lined
up exactly to the damage to the wheel, demonstrating that the
tire and the wheel both were damaged in the collision.”
