View Opinion

Horvitz & Levy convinced the Court of Appeal to affirm summary adjudication on products liability claimon the ground that a tire manufacturer had no duty to warn of a purported expiration date for older tires.  

Plaintiffs’ SUV overturned on a freeway following the failure of a tire that was purchased used when the tire was over 10 years old. They sued Michelin, the tire’s manufacturer, and others, for claims including failure to warn.  With respect to their failure to warn claim, plaintiffs alleged that Michelin should have provided an “expiration date” on the tire’s sidewall.  Michelin moved for summary adjudication on the failure to warn claim, arguing that there was no evidence the plaintiff would have seen or heeded a warning and that in any event, there was no duty to place an expiration date on the tires given that there is no scientific support for selecting a specific “expiration date.”  The trial court granted the motion.  Plaintiffs dismissed their remaining claims and appealed.  Michelin’s trial counsel retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the judgment.

Horvitz & Levy persuaded the Court of Appeal to affirm on the ground that plaintiffs could not establish the existence of a duty to warn.  The court agreed with Horvitz & Levy’s argument that the particular risk plaintiffs alleged—i.e., that the Michelin tire “expired” at a particular calendar age—was neither known or knowable under the generally recognized and prevailing scientific knowledge at the time of manufacture.  The court agreed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) research, which suggested further study was needed on tire aging, did not establish a knowable hazard.  The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that one car manufacturer’s 6-year tire expiration policy could establish the existence of a knowable hazard, especially where the industry generally recognized that tire service life depends on many factors (e.g., use, maintenance, and storage) rather than calendar age alone.

Horvitz & Levy then successfully opposed plaintiffs’ petition for review in the California Supreme Court.