Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez
James Leamon
Johnson & Wales University
Law 2001
Professor Bertron
01 Feb 2014
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
Johnson & Wales University
Law 2001
Professor Bertron
01 Feb 2014
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