Dico Tire, Inc. v. Cisneros

OPINION

This is a negligence and product liability case. Appellee, Roger Cisneros, sued appellant, Dieo Tire, Inc., for injuries he sustained when a tire exploded as he was repairing it. After the jury found that a design defect, a manufacturing defect, and Dieo’s negligence caused appellee’s injuries, the trial court rendered judgment against Dico in the amount of $243,247.65, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest. By thirty points of error, Dico challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the submission of certain jury questions, Cisneros’ jury argument, the assessment of prejudgment interest for future damages, and the denied cross-examination of Cisneros. We affirm.

At the time of the accident, Cisneros was a tire service repairman for E.B. Creager Tire & Battery, Inc. On May 22,1992, he was sent to a construction site to repair a tire on a front-end loader. He first put a small amount of air into the tire to find the leak and then deflated the tire. After separating the tire from the wheel, he noticed that the tire had previously been patched at least three times. Cisneros patched the new hole and remounted the tire on the rim. He seated, or locked, the tire’s beads against the steel flange of the rim by inserting four to five pounds of air pressure into the tire. Once the beads appeared to be seated, Cisne-ros continued to inflate the tire to thirty-five pounds while monitoring air pressure gauges. This pressure was well within the maximum of fifty pounds for which the tire was rated. During the inflation, Cisneros stood the tire upright on the ground, resting it on the tread. Cisneros did not use the safety restraining device which was available in his truck.

After the tire was inflated, the tire and wheel assembly fell flat on the ground. Cisneros recapped the valve stem which was facing up. Then, as Cisneros was leaning forward to reach under the tire to lift it up, the side to the ground blew off the wheel. The force of the expelled air propelled the tire upward into Cisneros’ face, causing him to fly backwards. Cisneros claims that at this point one side of the tire was free of the wheel assembly.

Cisneros’ nose and lip were cut open and several of his teeth were damaged. He was transported to a hospital emergency room where he was treated by a plastic surgeon. Eventually, Cisneros was also treated by a dentist, a neurologist, and an ear, nose, and throat specialist. He incurred approximately $32,000.00 in medical expenses and lost $1,100.00 in wages.

Cisneros sued Dico, alleging that the tire was defectively manufactured because the bead bundles deformed during the manufacturing process. He also alleged that a defective design caused the bead bundles to be susceptible to deformation during manufacture. In addition, Cisneros contended that other designs were available to protect against deformation in the manufacturing process and that the alternate designs reduced the risk of an explosive blow off, even when a deformation occurs. Cisneros further asserted that Dieo was negligent in its post-manufacture inspection of the tire because a reasonably prudent inspection would have disclosed the defect.

Dico answered and alleged that Cisneros’ own negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The jury found that design and manufacturing defects in the tire were pro *781 ducing causes and that Dico’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The jury also found that Cisneros was not negligent.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidenoe

Dico’s first eleven points of error challenge the legal and/or factual sufficiency of the evidence.

When a party without the burden of proof complains on appeal of a jury finding, the appropriate points of error are that there is “no evidence” or “insufficient evidence” to support the jury finding. Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55, 58 (Tex.1983).

When we review a “no evidence” or legal sufficiency of the evidence point of error, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that tend to support the jury’s finding, and we disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Responsive Terminal Sys. Inc. v. Boy Scouts of Am., 774 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex.1989). A legal sufficiency point must and may only be sustained when the record discloses: 1) a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; 2) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; 3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla; and 4) the evidence established conclusively the opposite of the vital fact. Juliette Fowler Homes, Inc. v. Welch Assoc., 793 S.W.2d 660, 666 n. 9 (Tex.1990). If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the legal sufficiency challenge fails. Stafford v. Stafford, 726 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex.1987). When the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of its existence, the evidence is not more than a scintilla and, in legal effect, is no evidence. Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex.1983). The test for the application of this no evidence/scintilla rule is that if reasonable minds cannot differ from the conclusion, then the evidence offered to support the existence of a vital fact lacks probative force, and it will be held to be the legal equivalent of no evidence. Id,

When we review an “insufficient evidence” or factual sufficiency point of error, we consider, weigh, and examine all of the evidence which supports or undermines the jury’s finding. Plas-Tex, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex.1989). We set aside the verdict only when we find that the evidence, standing alone, is too weak to support the finding or that the finding is so against the overwhelming weight of the evidence that it is manifestly unjust and clearly wrong. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986); Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1965).

By the following points of error, Dico contends that the evidence is legally and/ or factually insufficient to support the following findings:

Point 1 that there was a design defect in the tire;

Point 2 that there was a manufacturing defect in the tire at the time it left Dico’s possession;

Point 3 that Dico was negligent;

Point 4 that Dico’s acts or omissions proximately caused the occurrence in question; and

Point 5 that the tire as manufactured and designed was a producing cause of the accident.

Dico contends that the trial court erred in rendering judgment against Dico when it refused to disregard the jury’s findings for questions la and 2 through 4b. Dico relies on its strong safety and performance records and appellee’s alleged lack of scientifically reliable expert testimony.

The pertinent jury questions and answers are as follows:

QUESTION NO. 1

Did the negligence, if any of those named below proximately cause the occurrence in question?

Answer “Yes” or “No” for each of the following:

a. Dico Tire, Inc., acting by and through its agents, employees or representatives.

Answer: Yes

*782 QUESTION NO. 2

Was there a manufacturing defect in the tire in question at the time it left the possession of Dico Tire, Inc. that was a producing cause of the occurrence in question?

A “defect” means a condition of the product that renders it unreasonably dangerous. An “unreasonably dangerous” product is one that is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user of the product, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the product’s characteristics.

“Producing cause” means an efficient, exciting or contributing cause that, in natural sequence, produced the occurrence. There may be more than one producing cause.

Answer: Yes

QUESTION NO. 3

Was there a design defect in the tire in question at the time it left the possession of Dico Tire, Inc. that was a producing cause of the occurrence in question?

A “design defect” is a condition of the product that renders it unreasonably

a. Dico Tire, Inc. acting by and through representatives its agents, employees or

b. The tire in question

c. Roger D. Cisneros dangerous as designed, taking into consideration the utility of the product and the risk involved in its use by persons with similar skills as Roger Cisneros.

“Producing cause” means an efficient, exciting or contributing cause that, in natural sequence, produced the occurrence. There may be more than one producing cause.

Answer: Yes

If, in answers to Questions Nos. 1, 2 and/or 3, you have found that the negligence of more than one of the parties and/or one or more defects in the tire caused the occurrence, then answer Question No. 4. Otherwise, do not answer Question No. 4.

QUESTION NO. I

For each person or product found by you to have caused the occurrence, find the percentage caused by each.

The percentages you find must total one hundred percent. The percentage of causation attributable to a person or product is not necessarily measured by the number of acts, omissions or product defects found,

Answer: 80%

Answer: 20%

Answer: 0%

To establish causation in a personal injury case, a plaintiff must prove that the conduct of the defendant caused an event and that this event caused the plaintiff to suffer compensable injuries. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex.1995); Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Tex.1984). The elements of a negligence cause of action are a duty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach of duty. Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex.1995). The care taken by the supplier of a product in its preparation, manufacture, or sale is the ultimate question in a negligence action. Negligence looks at the acts of the manufacturer and determines if it exercised ordinary care in design and production. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379, 384 (Tex.1995); Gonzales v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 571 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.1978). To prove that the defendant failed to use ordinary care, the plaintiff must show the defendant did not exercise that degree of care that a person of ordinary prudence would have used under the same circumstances. Gannett Outdoor Co. of Tex. v. Kubeczka, 710 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ); Dawes v. J.C. Penney & Co., 236 S.W.2d 624, 628 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1951, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see Buchanan v. Rose, 138 Tex. 390, 159 S.W.2d 109, 110 (1942).

Negligence requires a showing of proximate cause, while producing cause is the *783 test in strict liability. Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex.1995). The components of proximate cause are cause-in-fact and foreseeability. Boys Clubs, 907 S.W.2d at 477. These elements cannot be established by mere conjecture, guess, or speculation. Id. Foreseeability requires that a person of ordinary intelligence should have anticipated the danger created by his negligent act. Id. at 478. The test for cause-in-fact is whether the negligent act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about injury, without which the harm would not have occurred. Id. Cause-in-fact is also a component of producing cause. Union Pump, 898 S.W.2d at 775. Producing cause is defined as an efficient, exciting, contributing cause which, in a natural sequence, produced the injuries complained of. Haynes & Boone v. Bowser Bouldin, Ltd., 896 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Tex.1995); Rourke v. Garza, 530 S.W.2d 794, 801 (Tex.1975).

A defectively designed product is one that is unreasonably dangerous as designed, taking into consideration the utility of the product and the risk involved in its use. Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 847 n. 1, 851 (Tex.1979). Design defect cases are not based on consumer expectancy, but on the manufacturer’s design of a product which makes it unreasonably dangerous, even though not flawed in its manufacture. Ford Motor Co. v. Pool, 688 S.W.2d 879, 881 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1985), aff'd in part on other grounds, rev’d in part on other grounds, 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.1986).

Whether a product was defectively designed requires a balancing by the jury of its utility against the likelihood of and gravity of injury from its use. Caterpillar, Inc., 911 S.W.2d at 383-84; Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743, 746 (Tex.1980). We evaluate whether a product has a design defect in light of the economic and scientific feasibility of safer alternatives. Caterpillar Inc., 911 S.W.2d at 384; see Boatland, 609 S.W.2d at 746. If there are no safer alternatives, a product is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. Caterpillar Inc., 911 S.W.2d at 384; see Boatland, 609 S.W.2d at 748.

To recover for a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must show a manufacturing flaw which renders the product unreasonably dangerous; that the defect existed at the time the product left the seller, and that the defect was the producing cause of the plaintiffs injuries. Pool, 688 S.W.2d at 881; Fitzgerald Marine Sales v. LeUnes, 659 S.W.2d 917, 918 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ dism’d). An unreasonably dangerous product is one that is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. Turner, 584 S.W.2d at 846-47. A manufacturing defect exists when a product does not conform to the design standards and blueprints of the manufacturer and the flaw makes the product more dangerous and therefore unfit for its intended or foreseeable uses. USX Corp. v. Salinas, 818 S.W.2d 473, 483 n. 8 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Pool, 688 S.W.2d at 881. The manufacturing defect theory is based upon a consumer expectancy that a mass-produced product will not differ from its counterparts in a manner which makes it more dangerous than the others. USX Corp., 818 S.W.2d at 477 n. 2; Pool, 688 S.W.2d at 881.

a. Legal Sufficiency

Cisneros testified that after inflating the tire with four or five pounds of pressure, the bead appeared to be seated next to the wheel’s flange. He then inflated the tire to thirty-five pounds of pressure, recapped the valve stem, and leaned down to pick up the tire. As he was bent over the tire, it exploded and hit him in the face. According to Cisneros, one side of the tire was over the flange after the explosion. Testimony from other witnesses supports Cisneros’ claims. Harry Cobb, a sales representative present at the construction site when the accident occurred, testified that he heard a loud popping noise and saw Cisneros fly backward while the tire bounced about ten feet. Cobb also testified that Cisneros’ face, nose, and mouth appeared to be injured. Creager Tire employees, who saw the tire and wheel assembly after the accident, testified that one bead of the tire was separated from the *784 wheel. Ricardo Martinez, assistant service manager for Creager, testified that he had no doubt that the tire blew off the flange.

Walter Harm, an engineer for Uniroyal Tire Company, testified about the design, manufacture, and testing of tire products. Harm has an economics degree from Wayne State University, a chemical engineering degree from William State University, and has completed some graduate work in chemical engineering at Wayne State. The entire thirty-one years of his professional career has been spent working for Uniroyal. Harm held the positions of tire construction engineer, materials engineer, research engineer, automotive manager for original equipment, and senior engineer for tire reliability. In these positions, Harm engineered the component parts of tires, evaluated new products, and tested tires to failure (burst testing) to determine how the components related to the cause. At one point in his career, Harm supervised quality control by inspecting tires before and after curing. When faulty tires were’ returned by customers during this period, Harm checked them for component failures. Harm also has experience in developing the materials that go into the make-up of component parts. He has performed materials failure testing and has issued production specifications for materials.

Harm described the wheel at issue as a single-piece wheel and the tire as a multist-rand weftless bead tire. He used a videotape provided by Dico to explain the process of building the tire. Harm explained that a tire’s plies are wrapped around rings of wires, or beads, located on both of the tire’s inner edges. The circumference of the bead is smaller than the wheel’s flange, or outer edge. The strength of bead wires is meant to prevent the tire from blowing over the flange.

Harm also explained how a tire like the one at issue would be mounted onto a wheel. According to Harm, one bead is placed over the flange as far as it will go. The remainder of the bead is lubricated and then forced onto the wheel. This bead falls into the narrow drop center of the wheel, allowing the process to be repeated with the other bead. Next, the tire is slightly inflated to seat the beads against the flanges. During this process, the beads trap air and move away from the narrow drop center out onto the larger portion of the wheel until they are locked against the flange. Once the beads appear to be seated, the inflation process can continue pursuant to the manufacturer’s specifications.

Harm testified that there are two possible causes for a tire bead to blow over the flange; a broken bead or a defective bead. In this case, x-rays eliminated the possibility that broken beads caused the accident. Harm explained, however, that a defective bead can give the appearance of being seated by hanging up. If the hang-up goes unnoticed, then the tire can blow over the flange in some instances.

Harm testified that cording, or bead hangups, are a normal part of the inflation procedure. A hang-up occurs when a portion of the bead does not move uniformly along the wheel out to the flange. Generally, a hangup will release itself causing a popping sound as the wires in the bead hit against the flange. On occasion a hang-up will cause the tire to have the appearance of being seated because the air pressure forces the tire’s side wall over the flange, hiding the fact that the bead did not move as it should have. Some hang-ups result in tire failure when the forces exerted on the tire are not spread evenly on all wires and a weakened portion of the bead blows over the flange. If the inflated tire were lying flat on the ground and the underside of the tire blew over the flange, the entire wheel assembly would be forced upward as air is expelled from the tire against the ground. A tire with thirty-five pounds of pressure could be projected upward ten to twenty feet.

In Harm’s opinion, a hang-up of a defective bead caused the explosion at issue. The explosive release of air against the ground forced the tire and wheel assembly up into Cisneros’ face as he was leaning over the tire. Harm based his opinion on his thirty-one years of experience in the tire industry, his training, his knowledge, and the evidence presented. He relied on testimony that the tire was inflated within the specified operat *785 ing pressures, that the bead appeared to be seated, that there was a loud explosion, and that after the event one bead was over the flange. Harm stated that he found no abnormalities during his inspection of the wheel assembly. However, x-rays revealed that the bead wires were not tightly wound and formed gaps. He explained that as wires gapped during curing, rubber flowed in to fill the spaces. When this happens, the tire has a dished out appearance and feel along its circumference. Harm testified that he could see and feel the defect in the bead. Because of the defect, the wires were not supplying the strength required to hold the bead on the wheel, and the bead slipped over the flange causing an explosive release of air pressure. Harm testified that the tire blew off the flange at this point in time, as opposed to the times prior or subsequent to the particular mounting procedure at issue, because the hang-up involved a weak spot which could not withstand the exerted pressures.

Harm testified that by design, the bead is supposed to be a tightly wound bundle of wires, symmetrical in shape, following a definite pattern, and laying in a definite layer of the tire. He explained, however, that during vulcanization, or curing, the wire ends can unwind and move within the liquid rubber if they are not secured. To prevent unwinding, Uniroyal uses tie-downs which are squares of woven fabric wound around the bead wires to keep them secure. Other methods of reducing the risks caused by loose wires included using a computer controlled hex design for greater uniformity in strength throughout the bead, or using a larger diameter wire to increase the tensile strength of the bead. These methods could also be combined. Harm stated that the three methods were in use in the tire industry, that they would reduce the risk of injuries, and that they would not decrease the tire’s utility. Harm testified that the risk of injury from defective beads could also be reduced if the manufacturer visually and manually inspected each tire after curing. If a manufacturer made these inspections, defective tires would be rejected before leaving the manufacturer’s possession.

Harm testified that Dico does not include tie-downs for bead wires in the design of its multistrand weftless tire. The tire at issue was described as such a tire. X-rays, viewed by the jury, showed that the wires in this tire were not as tightly wound as they should have been and gaps appeared between the wires. Harm opined that because the wires were encased in rubber and could not shift after the curing procedure was completed, they moved during the manufacturing process. Harm also testified that he could feel and see “dishouts” along the entire circumference of the tire. For this reason, it was his opinion that the bead was defective at the time the tire left Dieo’s possession. According to Harm, the tire was unreasonably dangerous as designed and manufactured.

Harm also reviewed the deposition testimony of Clarence E. Erickson, a Dico engineer. Erickson’s testimony showed that Dico did not have a manual post-cure inspection process for each tire. Erickson’s deposition testimony was read to the jury and showed that Dico did not inspect its beads after curing was completed. A videotape showing Dico’s manufacturing process, played during Harm’s testimony, did not show a manual inspection procedure. Harm testified that if Dico had operated in an ordinary and prudent manner as a reasonable tire company should, they would have a post-cure inspection procedure. Harm testified that Dieo’s failure to properly inspect finished tires was negligence. If Dico had inspected its finished tires, the defect at issue could have been found during a hand inspection, and the tire at issue would have been rejected.

Dico contends that Harm’s testimony was without probative value because it varied materially from the facts that were related by Cisneros. Specifically, Dico asserts that Cisneros claimed that the bead was properly seated and that Harm rejected this fact in developing his theory as to how the accident occurred. The record, however, shows Cisneros testified that the bead appeared to be seated. We conclude that Cisneros’ testimony does not vary materially from the facts on which Harm relied.

*786 Dieo also contends that Harm’s testimony was not scientifically reliable because it does not satisfy the Texas Supreme Court’s reliability test set forth in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.1995). Although the Robinson test was aimed at the admissibility of expert testimony, 1 which Dico did not challenge at trial, the Supreme Court, in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, recently held the test was applicable to a no evidence review of scientific evidence. 953 S.W.2d 706, 708, 714 (Tex.1997). However, not every testifying expert is providing scientific evidence. See S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1, 41 (Tex.1996) (Cornyn, J., concurring) (citing Edward J. Imwinkerlried, The Next Step After Daubert: Developing a Similarly Epistemological approach to Ensuring the Reliability of Nonscientific Expert Testimony, 15 CaRDOZO L.Rev. 2272, 2278 (1994)). Some expert testimony is derived from specialized knowledge or technical expertise. Tex.R. Civ. Evid. 702. We conclude that Harm was not providing scientific evidence; his testimony was derived from specialized knowledge and technical expertise. We, therefore, rely on Schaefer v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n, 612 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.1980), for the appropriate test.

In order to constitute proof, Harm’s testimony had to establish the “reasonable probability” of a causal connection between the tire and the injury. See Schaefer, 612 S.W.2d at 202. Reasonable probability is determined by substance and context of the opinion, and does not turn on semantics or on the use of a particular term or phrase. Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 711; Burroughs Wellcome, 907 S.W.2d at 500; Schaefer, 612 S.W.2d at 202-05. The entire substance of the expert’s testimony must be examined to determine if the opinion is based on demonstrable facts and does not rely solely on assumptions, possibility, speculation, and surmise. Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 712; Schaefer, 612 S.W.2d at 204-05.

After reviewing the substance of Harm’s testimony, we find that it establishes the reasonable probability that a defective bead in a Dico tire caused Cisneros’ injuries. The testimony was derived from Harm’s thirty-one years in the tire industry spent in design, production, testing, and quality control. Harm’s testimony is based on demonstrable facts rather than assumptions, possibility, surmise, and speculation. We conclude, therefore, that Harm’s testimony is rehable proof of design and manufacturing defects as well as of Dico’s negligence. Moreover, portions of Harm’s testimony were similar to testimony provided by other witnesses.

Clarence Erickson, a retired Dieo tire engineer, testified that a tightly wound bead bundle has more strength than one with gaps. He agreed that there was an explosive separation of the tire from the rim and did not dispute the fact that the tire and wheel assembly was propelled off the ground. Erickson admitted that a Dico tire with a defective bead which allowed the tire to blow over the flange would absolutely create a dangerous condition. He also testified that the danger would not be one contemplated by the ordinary user. Moreover, Erickson viewed x-rays of the tire at issue. He explained that the underlap moved through the wires. Erickson claimed this was not an unusual occurrence because that was the way Dico made these tires.

Ronald Walker, who had extensive expertise in the area of tire failure analysis, testified that if the bottom side of a tire were not properly seated and the tire was inflated to thirty-five pounds, then a fireman would be in danger if he leaned over the tire. If an explosion occurred at that point, the fireman would be injured. Walker also testified that hang-ups were common occurrences that can affect the construction of the tire by creating weaknesses. Walker opined that one portion of the bead on the tire at issue abraded against the edge of the wheel well, while another portion got “ready to come up over the flange” as pressure was added. At that point, the tire rapidly deflated, the tire and wheel assembly was launched, and the bead came off the wheel.'

*787 We hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s findings on the issues of negligence, design defect, and manufacturing defect. We must now determine if the evidence is factually sufficient by considering all the evidence, whether favorable to the jury verdict or not.

b. Factual Sufficiency

Cisneros testified that rings are molded onto the side of every tire in order to facilitate the bead seating process. These rings should be equidistant from the rim if the bead is properly seated. Cisneros said that he cheeked the rings and that the bead appeared to be seated. Harm testified that the rings should be concentric if the bead is properly seated. Dico appears to believe that this evidence should weigh heavily in its favor. However, Dico provided no evidence indicating that the rings could not be concentric if there was a hang-up, as described by Mr. Harm, or if the bead appeared to be seated.

Harm testified that the wire used by Dico in the bead on the tire at issue was still used in the tire industry at the time of trial. He stated that the industry was also using a wider diameter wire than that found in the Dico tire. Although fewer strands of the larger wire are used in a bead, Harm said the strength was much greater than using more strands of the narrow wire. Initially, Harm gave an incorrect explanation during a portion of his testimony on mounting a tire. He explained, however, that he was more experienced with passenger tires than those found on heavy equipment. He corrected his testimony after reviewing a manual. Such testimony merely raised a credibility issue which we do not consider.

Harm indicated that he inspected the tire at issue for approximately one-half day. While he admitted that factory inspectors would not have this long to inspect each tire, Harm did say that a hand inspection would have been sufficient to determine whether the tire at issue was defective. Harm admitted that some defective tires did manage to slip through the Uniroyal inspection process, but stated that Uniroyal was not likely to be negligent when this occurred.

Harm testified that he could find no physical evidence of an explosion on the tire or the rim. Instead, he relied on other evidence such as the testimony of Cisneros, witnesses who heard the explosion and saw the result, and the fact that the tire was off the wheel on one side. He admitted that if the bead was properly seated, as it appeared to be, then the bead could not blow over the flange without breaking. However, if the tire was down in the tire well, it could come off the flange. Nevertheless, Harm explained that the tire would not trap air if the bead was all the way into the well because of a gap between the tire and the wheel. The bead had to be positioned at the edge of the well before the tire would inflate.

Manfred Walter, owner of Creager, testified that he found nothing wrong with the tire. He said that he could only remember doing one adjustment during ten years of selling Dico tires. Walter said that Creager continued to sell Dico tires after the accident. Ricardo Martinez testified that he remounted the tire when it was returned to Creager after the accident. He explained that he would not have remounted the tire if he believed it would explode. However, Martinez admitted telling an investigator for Cisneros, approximately two months after the accident, that he thought the Dico tire had a defective bead. Luis Santos, a longtime Creager employee, testified that after doing a careful examination of the bead following the accident, he did not consider the bead defective.

In addition to the previously discussed testimony of Clarence Erickson, his testimony shows that this particular line of tires had been produced for fifteen years. They were first produced by Armstrong and then by Dico, after Dico bought out Armstrong. Erickson could not recall any complaints about the tires during that fifteen-year period. Erickson testified that Dico produces from 30,-000 to 40,000 tires of this type every year. Dico conducted substantial testing on this line of tires because it was one of the more popular products. Erickson disagreed that a slight separation in the bead bundle during the vulcanization process would cause the bead to be weak. He explained that the tire *788 industry made approximately one million weftless tires a day and that the beads are not generally tied down, especially in the size of tire at issue. He claimed, contrary to his deposition testimony, that Dico visually and manually inspected every cured tire. The waves that Harm testified he could feel in the bead were described by Erickson as the tire’s texture which was created by a vented innerlining.

During his deposition, Erickson was asked the following question:

In terms of just quality control procedures or inspection procedures with respect to tires that are going to be shipped to customers, are there any quality control procedures or inspections with respect to the bead following the curing process?

Erickson’s response was “no.” During his testimony before the jury, Erickson explained:

When I made that answer, we had been discussing in detail the bead bundle. So, my answer was that once the tire is cured, you can no longer inspect the bead bundle, per se, because it’s already been encased in fabric. You can’t see it, so you can’t inspect it, except by x-ray.

So, at that time, I said “No.” But as I said earlier, that doesn’t mean that the tire doesn’t go down a eonvey[o]r, go to final finish and be 100 percent inspected, every single tire we manufacture.

Erickson used the Dico videotape, which he made, to provide an extensive explanation of the tire manufacturing process. He pointed out the innerlining material when it appeared on the videotape. He also described how the bead was locked in place when a woven piece of fabric was stitched down. Toward the end of the videotape, Erickson stated that cured tires are placed on a conveyor, and they move to an area where the tires are trimmed and inspected. However, the inspection process itself was not included on the videotape.

Although Erickson agreed that there was an explosive release of air from the tire, he did not agree that it occurred because the tire separated from the rim. In his opinion, the explosion occurred because a portion of one bead trapped air pressure down in the tire well. He would not estimate how much pressure the bead could hold in such a position, but he did say that it would have to be a sufficient amount of air to blow the tire off the rim. Erickson was then asked to inspect the tire in such a position. Erickson admitted that there were large gaps between the well and the tire, but he would not admit that the gaps prevented the tire from inflating. Instead he claimed that something, such as dirt, must have sealed the gap.

Erickson was then asked about notes he made after an earlier inspection of the tire. These notes indicated that if the bead on one side of the tire was seated near the flange, then the other bead close to the well would remain in a near perfect circle. In addition, the notes indicated that the bead close to the well could not be moved down into the wheel well without the use of a tool. Erickson did not dispute that these notes were valid at the time they were made, and he stated that he was unfamiliar with tires of the type at issue hanging up in the well, as he opined this tire did.

Testimony from Ronald Walker, in addition to that previously discussed, showed that Walker visually inspected the tire and wheel assembly and x-rayed the bead bundle. He stated that he could find no problems with the tire or wheel that would prevent their continued use. Although Walker agreed that x-rays introduced into evidence by Cisneros accurately represented the condition of the tire as reflected in his own x-rays, he would not say the bead bundle was defective. Walker testified that the beads were intact and that he considered them safe for mounting.

According to Walker, if Harm’s theory was correct, then the b