Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company

749 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, while employed as a tire mechanic, was mounting and dismounting a D multi-piece rim wheel assembly to a trailer axle. P sustained injuries when a part of the three-part rim wheel assembly separated with explosive force, striking P in the head. D manufactured two product lines of multi-piece rim wheel assemblies. After years of production and usage, situations arose whereby the 7.33 VR side and lock rings would be placed together with 7.5 R5 degree rim bases. This was known as a 'mismatch,' which is involved in the present action. P claims that the parts were serviceable and properly reassembled when he mounted the tire on the axle. P claims that the separation resulted from the inherent instability of the product, which constituted a design defect. D contends that the separation was due to a lack of serviceability of the parts or P's improper reassembly. P sued D asserting theories of negligence and strict liability in tort for the defective design of the multi-piece truck wheel components. D wanted to admit evidence of P's prior instances of drinking alcoholic beverages. P argued that testimony from Thompson, P's former employer between 1969 and 1971, was too remote in time and insufficient to establish P's regular routine at the time of the accident in 1974. Thompson also testified that P's reputation in the community was a 'happy, easy-to-get-along-with guy, but he drank too much.' D also presented testimony from Orr, P's supervisor and P himself to establish P's drinking habit pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 406. The court held that D offered evidence of P's drinking over an extended period of time, coupled with evidence of P's regular practice of carrying a cooler of beer at or about the time of the accident and was known by coworkers to drink on the job. The district court relied on the cumulative effect of the evidence in measuring its sufficiency to establish a drinking habit under rule 406. The court admitted the evidence and D got the verdict and P appealed.