Expert Testimony Sufficient to Avoid Dismissal of Claims Against Bridgestone/Firestone
In a lawsuit against Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire ("Bridgestone"), plaintiff brought suit against Bridgestone after her child was fatally injured in a rollover automobile accident, alleging that the accident was caused by a failed Bridgestone tire.
Plaintiff presented testimony from an expert witness who opined that the tire failure was caused by separation in the tread and upper steel belt from the body, it had insufficient fatigue strength/age deterioration/resistance to cracks, and it had an inadequate liner/wedge.
Bridgestone moved to have the negligence and strict liability claims against them dismissed, arguing under FRE 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael that plaintiff's expert was unqualified to render a reliable expert opinion on the matter.
U.S. District Court Judge David G. Campbell from Arizona rejected Bridgestone's arguments holding that plaintiff's expert was qualified "by knowledge, experience, training and education to testify on the cause of the tire failure;" citing the expert's graduate training in mechanical engineering and 19 years of evaluating failed tires and consulting work on these matters.
See Andrews et al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. et al.
