Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-03205/USCOURTS-ca10-94-03205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donna Meyerhoff
Appellee
Lowell Meyerhoff
Appellee
Michelin Tire Corporation
Appellant
Timpte Trailer Company
Not Party

Document Text:

Patrick Fisher 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Office of the Clerk 

Byron White United States Courthouse 

1823 stout street 

Denver, co 80257 

November 27, 1995 

Elisabeth Shumaker 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED DECISION 

RE: 94-3185, 94-3205, Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp. 

Filed October 10, 1995 by Judge Anderson 

Please be advised that the court, on its own motion, 

has ordered the publication of the captioned decision. 

Attached is a published version. 

Attachment 

Very truly yours, 

Patrick Fisher, 

Clerk ., 

By: Ud~?:u~ x/i_{/~ Barbara Schermerhorn 

Deputy Clerk 

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 1 
PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LOWELL MEYERHOFF and DONNA 

MEYERHOFF, individually, and as Administrators 

of the Estate of KEVIN LOWELL MEYERHOFF, 

deceased, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v. 

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION and TIMPTE 

TRAILER COMPANY, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

LOWELL MEYERHOFF and DONNA 

MEYERHOFF, individually, and as Administrators 

ofthe Estate ofKEVIN LOWELL MEYERHOFF, 

deceased, 

Plaintiffs - Appellees, 

v. 

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION, 

Defendant - Appellant, 

and 

TIMPTE TRAILER COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

United States Court of Appa11s 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 2 7 1995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Cleric 

No. 94-3185 

No. 94-3205 

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 2 
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 91-1279) 

Richard D. Cordry (Gregory D. Bell and Frances A. Hartman with him on the briefs), 

Cordry, Hund & Hartman, Wichita, Kansas, for the Meyerhoffs. 

Richard C. Hite (ArthurS. Chalmers with him on the brief), Kahrs, Nelson, Fanning, Hite 

& Kellogg, Wichita, Kansas, for Michelin Tire Corporation. 

Steven M. Kerwick (Trisha A. Thelen on the brief), Foulston & Sietkin, Wichita, Kansas, 

for Timpte Trailer Company. 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

INTRODUCTION 

This is a products liability action brought in diversity by the survivors of Kevin 

Meyerhoff, who was killed when a tire he was inflating exploded. His survivors sued the 

tire manufacturer, Michelin Tire Corporation, and the product seller, Timpte Trailer 

Company, under various theories including negligent failure to warn. The district court 

determined in pretrial proceedings that Timpte was entitled to summary judgment. After 

trial and a verdict for the plaintiffs, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law 

in favor of Michelin. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 3 
The Meyerhoffs appeal, claiming sufficient evidence exists in the record to support 

a jury verdict against both defendants, or, in the alternative, that they are entitled to a new 

trial. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

FACTS 

Kevin Meyerhoff worked as a truck driver, hauling grain for the John Fischer 

Trucking Company in Ellis, Kansas. Meyerhoff operated the company's only truck, a 

tractor-trailer rig owned by the company's sole shareholder, John Fischer. Meyerhoff 

was responsible for making deliveries and maintaining the truck. 

In January 1988, Fischer purchased a new grain trailer from Timpte Trailer 

Company in Commerce City, Colorado. At the time of purchase, Fischer made a special 

request that the trailer be outfitted with Michelin 11R24.5 XDHT tires. The tires were 

designed for use on the drive wheel of an 18-wheel semi, and Fischer had requested the 

tires with that ultimate use in mind. He planned to remount the tires on his truck once he 

returned to Kansas. 

Timpte agreed to Fischer's special request and contacted an authorized Michelin 

dealer, J.W. Brewer Tire Company in Denver, Colorado. J.W. Brewer delivered the tires, 

and Timpte had them mounted on the trailer. When Fischer returned with the grain trailer 

to Kansas, he removed the Michelin tires from the trailer, mounted them on the truck, and 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 4 
replaced the trailer tires with the tires from the truck. Meyerhoff then drove the truck 

with the Michelin tires for about one year, pulling the trailer between 90,000 and 100,000 

miles. 

During that time, and for an indeterminate length of time, Meyerhoff inadvertently 

drove the truck while the air pressure in one of the tires was much lower than the 

recommended 100 pounds per square inch. On the morning ofMarch 10, 1989, 

Meyerhoff arrived at Fischer's shop to find the tire deflated. He removed the tire from 

the truck and patched a hole in it. He then began to reinflate it to its recommended 

pressure. He leaned the tire against another truck in Fischer's shop, attached the air hose, 

and stood nearby as the tire inflated. As he did so, the tire suddenly exploded through the 

sidewall. 

The tremendous force of the air escaping from the large truck tire, and possibly a 

piece of the tire itself, struck Meyerhoff in the stomach. The blast ruptured Meyerhoff s 

diaphragm and main pulmonary artery and displaced the large bowel and stomach into his 

chest cavity. He died a short time later of the resulting internal bleeding. 

Inspection of the Michelin tire revealed that it had developed "circumferential 

wrinkling" from being run while underinflated. This phenomenon is characterized by 

creases or wrinkles around the circumference of the tire. The load on the underinflated 

tire weakens or breaks the internal steel belts, causing significant weakening of the tire 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 5 
sidewall. Upon reinflation, the force of the air ruptures the weakened sidewall, causing 

the air to escape suddenly and, in this case, with fatal consequences. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

In 1991, Lowell and Donna Meyerhoff filed this wrongful death and survivorship 

suit in Kansas state court, individually and as administrators of their son's estate. They 

named as defendants Michelin Tire Corporation and Tim pte Trailer Company. The 

Meyerhoffs sought damages related to the injuries and death of their son under theories of 

negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. They later amended their 

complaint to include a claim for punitive damages against Michelin. 

After removing the case to federal court, the defendants moved for summary 

judgment on all claims. The district court granted the motion ofTimpte Trailer, finding 

that Tim pte had no duty to warn Meyerhoff of the hazard that caused his death. The court 

also granted Michelin's motion on the design defect claim as well as the motions of both 

defendants on the breach of warranty claims. However, the court denied Michelin's 

motion on the failure to warn claim, finding that material issues of fact required 

resolution by a fact finder. 

The case against Michelin was tried to an eight person jury in October 1993. At 

the close of the Meyerhoffs' evidence, the district court directed a verdict for Michelin on 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 6 
the punitive damages claim and denied a similar motion by Michelin on the underlying 

failure to warn claim. At the close of all the evidence, Michelin renewed its motion and 

the court again denied the motion on the failure to warn claim. The court then submitted 

the case to the jury, which returned a verdict for the Meyerhoffs. The jury based liability 

on Michelin's failure to place warnings on the sidewall of the tire. The jury found no 

fault, however, based on Michelin's warnings in its literature. 

The jurors assessed damages at $334,193.45, apportioning fault as follows: 11% to 

Michelin, 14% to Meyerhoff, 10% to nonparty J.W. Brewer Tire Company, and 65% to 

nonparty Fischer. Applying Kansas law, the district court fixed the award at $36,761.28, 

or 11% of the total damages. 

Michelin then renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and the 

Meyerhoffs moved for a new trial. The district court granted Michelin's motion and 

denied the motion for a new trial. The court determined the Meyerhoffs had failed to 

produce legally sufficient evidence at trial to support their theory that Michelin acted 

unreasonably in omitting warnings from the tire itself. 

The Meyerhoffs appeal the district court's legal rulings granting summary 

judgment in favor ofTimpte Trailer, granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of 

Michelin, and denying their own motion for a new trial. Michelin cross-appeals the 

- 6 -

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 7 
district's court's determination on summary judgment that Michelin owed Meyerhoff a 

duty to warn. 1 

DISCUSSION 

1. Timpte Trailer's Duty to Warn 

We first address the Meyerhoffs' contention that the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment in favor ofTimpte Trailer on the failure to warn claim. We review 

the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard applicable in the 

district court. Koch v. Shell Oil Co., 52 F.3d 878, 880 (lOth Cir. 1995). Summary 

judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the 

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. I d. 

The Meyerhoffs contend in this appeal that Timpte owed their son a duty to warn 

him of the danger in question, on two separate grounds. First, they argue that Timpte had 

a duty to pass on warnings it received from Michelin. Second, they argue Timpte had an 

independent duty as a product seller to warn of dangers of which it either knew or had 

reason to know. 

1 As a separate issue, the Meyerhoffs have moved for an order allowing them to 

supplement the record on appeal. We grant the motion. 

- 7 -

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 8 
The Meyerhoffs start with the proposition that "[a] manufacturer's immediate 

vendee certainly has a duty to convey adequate warnings that it has received from a 

manufacturer." Mason v. Texaco. Inc., 741 F. Supp. 1472, 1489 (D. Kan. 1990), affd on 

other grounds, 948 F.2d 1546 (lOth Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 910 (1992). They 

argue from this proposition that Timpte owed a duty as a "vendee" to pass on Michelin's 

warnings. Timpte, on the other hand, points out that it was not the "immediate vendee" 

of the Michelin tires and therefore had no such duty. 

We are bound in this diversity case by Kansas substantive law. Cf. Koch, 52 F.3d 

at 880. We are therefore controlled by expressions of the Kansas Supreme Court. See. 

~' id. at 884 n.S. The Kansas decisions make clear that a product seller has a duty to 

warn its customers of those dangers of which it either knows or has reason to know. E.,g,_, 

Jones v. Hittle Service. Inc., 549 P.2d 1383, 1391, 1395 (1976); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. 

§ 60-3306 (incorporating rule into products liability statute). This is in fact the second 

basis the Meyerhoffs assert in support of their argument and the only one we find to 

accurately reflect applicable Kansas law. To the extent the Meyerhoffs contend that 

Timpte had a duty to pass on warnings it received from Michelin or J.W. Brewer, we 

view that argument as a subset of the duty to warn consumers about dangers of which 

Timpte knew or should have known. 

- 8 -

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 9 
We first address the Meyerhoffs' contention that Tim pte failed to pass on 

Michelin's warnings. The undisputed material facts show Timpte never received 

Michelin's literature containing the warnings at its Commerce City, Colorado, location. 

J.W. Brewer did not ship any such information along with the tires. We agree with the 

district court that if Timpte did not receive the warnings, it had no reason to know of them 

and therefore no duty to communicate them to its customers. 

The Meyerhoffs argue, however, that evidence in the record shows Timpte did 

receive 350 Michelin Truck Tire Limited Warranties at its headquarters in Wayne, 

Nebraska, prior to Fischer's purchase of the tire in question. They point to the following 

information in the Limited Warranties to support their contention that Tim pte knew or 

should have known of the hazard in question: 

Procedures for the proper retreading and repair of Michelin truck tires are 

contained in a Michelin Retreading and Repair Manual and should be carried out 

only by qualified personnel with proper equipment. See a Michelin truck tire 

dealer .... 

This information by itself is insufficient, as a matter of law, to give Timpte knowledge or 

put it on notice that tires operated while underinflated explode upon reinflation. It 

therefore makes no difference whether Tim pte received the Limited Warranties in 

- 9 -

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 10 
Nebraska or Colorado. Nothing about the information cited creates a jury question on 

Timpte's duty to warn? 

The Meyerhoffs next contend that Abner Gene Autrey, an equipment manager 

employed by Michelin, provided Tim pte multiple copies of the Michelin Truck, Industrial 

& Off-The-Road Data Books and other technical bulletins containing specific warnings 

about the hazard in question, which the jury found to be adequate. While Autrey's 

testimony could support a finding that delivery of these materials was actually made, it 

does not establish when. The Meyerhoffs have produced no evidence that relevant 

technical bulletins or booklets were distributed to Timpte by Autrey or anyone else before 

the date Fischer purchased the Michelin tires.3 Accordingly, the Meyerhoffs have failed 

to raise a fact question on whether Tim pte knew or should have known of the warnings in 

the tire data booklets or technical bulletins when it sold the tires to Fischer. 

2

Contrary to the Meyerhoffs' contention, this conclusion has no bearing on 

Michelin's liability. The record contains sufficient evidence of warnings in other 

Michelin literature to support a reasonable jury determination that Michelin adequately 

warned ofthe hazard in question. See. e.g., Michelin Truck, Industrial & Off-The-Road 

Data Book, Appellants' App. at 269-72 (warning not to repair tires damaged while run 

underinflated, with pictures). 

3 Autrey's deposition testimony on this point merely reads: 

Q: Sir, earlier you indicated that you provided to Timpte a copy or some copies 

of a truck tire data booklet; is that right? 

A: Yes. 

Appellants' App. at 267. 

- 10-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 11 
Finally, the Meyerhoffs argue that, independent of any Michelin literature, Tim pte 

knew or had reason to know the Michelin tire could explode upon reinflation after being 

run underinflated. They argue that both the parts manager and the salesman for Timpte in 

Commerce City, Colorado, knew of the danger involved. 

The relevant testimony ofDavid A. Durand, parts manager at the time of the 

purchase, is as follows: 

Q: All right. In your work at Timpte, do you have any responsibility for 

mounting or demounting tires? 

A: No. 

Q: In your work at Timpte, have you ever been informed that a standard truck 

tire inflated with 7 5 pounds of air has the potential internal force of 46,510 

pounds, enough to throw a 40-pound object over the Empire State Building 

or raise a 3,000-pound car 15 feet in the air? 

A: Not that I can recall. I've been told they're dangerous. 

Q: Who has told you that? 

A: Oh, anybody that's worked around them, I guess. 

Q: What do you understand the danger to be? 

A: Death. 

Appellants' App. at 260. Similarly, Ronald E. Dietz testified as follows: 

Q: [W]hat was your job title or position? 

A: Sales representative. 

Q: Okay. In your capacity as a sales representative, sir, what did you do for 

the Timpte Trailer Company? 

A: I called on customers, current and prospects, and marketed our product to 

them. 

Q: And what specifically was the product that you were marketing? 

A: With Timpte at that time, it was their grain trailer. 

Id. at 245. 

- 11-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 12 
Q: Okay. When were you first informed that somebody had been injured, and 

in fact somebody had died, as a result of a Michelin tire exploding upon 

reinflation that had been sold by yourself? 

A: In general, I believe it was three or four months ago. I think. You know, I 

can't remember the date when he called. 

Q: Okay. Mr. Dietz, would it be a fair statement that, as far as your practice 

back in '88, when you were selling these tires-- Timpte trailers, that it 

wasn't your practice to sit down with the customers and go through any of 

the tire warranty books, discussing with them the dangers of reinflation of 

truck tires after repair? 

A: I believe that would be a fair statement. 

Q: As a matter of fact, wouldn't it be a fair statement, sir, that until this case 

come [sic] along, you had never heard of anyone dying as a result of 

reinflation of a truck tire? 

A: I could say that I've never heard of anybody that directly affected what I 

had done [sic]. I have seen document -- documents on 20/20 and things 

such as that, that I think everybody has heard of stuff like that. But as a 

direct result or something that I was close to, no. 

Id. at 251. 

Q: Do you know of anybody that-- than that incident, that's been injured while 

working on a tire, for any reason? 

A: And, yes, I do. 

Q: (By Mr. Rogers) Could you tell me about that, please. 

A: I wasn't there, but the man who owns D&J Tire Service had a tire blow up 

on him one time while he was inflating it. 

Q: What would his name be? 

A: Jim Sherwood. 

Q: Do you know any more circumstances than that? 

A: No, I don't. 

I d. at 252-53. 

Q: While you were working with Timpte, did you ever have an occasion where 

a customer brought one of the trailers back for repair of a tire? 

- 12-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 13 
A: No. 

A: In regard to the answer of what happened to D&J, I believed until today that 

it was a rim that came off. And I talked with D&J Tire Service this 

morning, because they were doing work for me there, and I asked them to 

recall that, and that was an inflation problem, he told me. 

So it wasn't a rim coming off that I had already -- always perceived 

that it was. I-- it's something that I never really thought about in-- I don't 

--I have limited understanding about tires. 

Q: You're a trailer salesman, aren't you? 

A: Right. I'm careful when I inflate my tires on my car, whether it's hot, 

whether it's cold out. I want to be sure that when I'm inflating them that 

it's cold, only because it's just-- it's general knowledge. 

Id. at 254. 

We agree with the district court that this evidence raises no issue of fact regarding 

Timpte's duty to warn. No reasonable jury could conclude from such evidence that 

Timpte knew or should have known of the dangers associated with reinflating worn 

underinflated tires. Such evidence certainly does not prove these witnesses knew of the 

specific danger in question, as the Meyerhoffs have argued. At most, it would allow a 

jury to find that Timpte employees -- who were in the business of selling trailers -- had 

some general knowledge that danger could accompany reinflation of a truck tire. As the 

district court rightly concluded, "[t]his general knowledge is not knowledge of the 

specific hazard involved in this case, and, even assuming Timpte had some independent 

duty to warn, is not sufficient to create a jury question." Appellants' App. at 3 0 n.ll. 

- 13-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 14 
In sum, we find that the Meyerhoffs failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a 

reasonable jury to find Timpte liable for failing to warn of the hazard that led to their 

son's death. Because the undisputed facts show Timpte did not know or have reason to 

know of the hazard, Tim pte had no duty to warn customers of that hazard. For these 

reasons, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in Timpte's favor. 

2. Michelin's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 

The Meyerhoffs next contend that the district court erred in granting Michelin's 

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Our review of that legal determination 

is de novo. Riggs v. Scrivner. Inc., 927 F.2d 1146, 1149 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 502 

U.S. 867 (1991). Judgment as a matter oflaw is appropriate "only if the evidence, 

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, 'points but one way and is 

susceptible to no reasonable inferences supporting' the nonmoving party." Id. (quoting 

Zimmerman v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 848 F.2d 1047, 1051 (lOth Cir. 

1988)). 

Kansas substantive law provides that every products liability action must be based 

on a defective condition in the product, regardless of the theory of recovery. See. e.g., 

Lane v. Redman Mobile Homes. Inc., 624 P.2d 984, 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). A 

product, though perfectly designed and manufactured, may be defective if not 

- 14-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 15 
accompanied by adequate warnings of its dangerous characteristics. See Mays v. CibaGeigy Corp., 661 P.2d 348, 362-63 (Kan. 1983). "In determining warning issues, the test 

is reasonableness. To impose liability on a manufacturer, the p1aintiffmust show 

negligence on the part ofthe manufacturer." Johnson v. American Cyanamid Co., 718 

P.2d 1318, 1324 (Kan. 1986). Thus our inquiry on review is whether, under the standard 

set out above, legally sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's finding that 

Michelin was negligent in failing to place a warning of the hazard in question on the side 

of its tire. 

At trial, the Meyerhoffs' primary theory of recovery was that a warning should 

have been placed in yellow or some other contrasting color on the sidewall of the tire. To 

support this theory, their counsel called Loren Forney as an expert witness to testify that it 

would be feasible to do so. The district court would not allow Mr. Forney to testify to 

that effect, finding he was not qualified to offer expert testimony on the contrasting color 

theory. The Meyerhoffs now argue that excluding Mr. Forney's testimony was error. 

We review a trial court's exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion. 

Broadcort Capital Corp. v. Summa Medical Corp., 972 F.2d 1183, 1194-95 (lOth Cir. 

1992). We find no such abuse in this case. In conducting a voir dire examination of Mr. 

Forney, counsel for Michelin established that he had not worked for a tire manufacturer 

since 1960; that he had never worked in the manufacturing of radial tires; that he did not 

- 15-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 16 
know the manufacturing tolerances or related technical requirements for putting colored 

letters on truck tire sidewalls; and that no manufacturer was currently putting colored 

letters on tires the size of the Michelin XDHT's. See Appellee's App. at 234-42. Given 

this showing, the court properly exercised its discretion in excluding the proffered 

testimony. Absent such testimony, no evidence admitted at trial showed Michelin could 

feasibly have provided a warning on its truck tire in a contrasting color.4 

That left the Meyerhoffs with the fallback theory that Michelin was negligent for 

failing to place a warning in black letters on the black tire. Both sides agree, and the 

district court recognized, that Michelin could feasibly have produced a black-on-black 

warning. The only remaining question was whether under such circumstances Michelin 

should have placed such a warning on its tire to meet its duty of reasonable care. 

The testimony of the Meyerhoffs' own experts at trial established that a black-onblack warning would not be adequate to warn. Mr. Forney testified, for example: 

Q: Now, as to warnings on the side of tires in black rubber that were placed 

there by other tire manufacturers in 1987, you don't believe those are 

effective, do you? 

A: They're better than nothing. 

Q: I questioned you, though, as to whether you thought they were effective? 

A: I would have to agree. I don't think they are effective .... 

4

The Meyerhoffs did introduce evidence at trial that other tires had warnings in 

white on their sidewalls. Michelin established, however, that none of the tires were truck 

tires or similar in size to the Michelin tire at issue. The district court instructed the jury 

that it was not to consider any evidence that Michelin failed to meet its duty of care by 

failing to put a warning in white or any other color on its tire sidewall. 

- 16-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 17 
Appellants' App. at 156 (emphasis added). Ronald Wells likewise testified only that a 

black warning on a black tire was "better than nothing." Id. at 185; see also id. at 183-84; 

Appellee's App. at 274-75 (black-on-black warnings inadequate). As Michelin correctly 

notes, "better than nothing" is not the relevant legal standard. The inquiry for the jury 

was whether Michelin's actions were those of a reasonable manufacturer. There is no 

evidence from the Meyerhoffs' experts that failing to supply a black-on-black warning 

fell below the standard of reasonable care. 

The Meyerhoffs argue, however, that Michelin's own expert testimony supports 

their proposition. We decline to address the merits of this argument, which was not 

presented to the district court nor ruled on below. See Walker v. Mathers (In re Walker), 

959 F.2d 894, 896 (lOth Cir. 1992) ("'[A] federal appellate court does not consider an 

issue not passed upon below."') (quoting Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976)). 

The Meyerhoffs finally submit that expert testimony was not required to prove 

their case. They argue that the jury could reasonably have concluded based on nonexpert 

evidence that Michelin could have provided an adequate warning. They point to a 

Goodyear tire introduced into evidence and argue the tire itself is proof that Michelin 

could feasibly have produced an adequate warning. They contend that adequacy of a 

warning is peculiarly a jury determination for which expert testimony is unnecessary. 

- 17-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 18 
The Kansas Supreme Court has suggested that expert testimony "should be 

considered" in a failure to warn case. Humes v. Clinton, 792 P.2d 1032, 1043 (Kan. 

1990). We need not decide whether this proposition necessarily holds true in every case, 

for the Meyerhoffs chose to prove their case through expert testimony. They did not 

introduce the Goodyear tire and simply argue to the jury that it was evidence from which 

the jury could find adequate warnings were possible. Rather, they chose to examine their 

experts and submit the resulting testimony as the basis for their arguments. As Michelin 

aptly notes, "This is not a case where plaintiffs attempted to make a warning defect claim 

without an expert. This, instead, is a case where plaintiffs' experts did not support 

plaintiffs' theory." Appellee's Br. at 31. 

Expert testimony in this case informed the jury on the technical and logistical 

considerations of a manufacturer in Michelin's position charged with a duty to provide 

warnings. All of the Meyerhoffs' expert testimony tended to show that it was reasonable 

for a tire manufacturer to exclude a black warning from the black tire because it was an 

ineffective means of communicating the message. 5 None of the testimony supported the 

5

The Meyerhoffs argue that the trial court erred in holding they needed to show 

their proposed warning would be both "adequate" and "effective." We believe the trial 

court properly recognized that the adequacy of any proposed warning in this case 

depended on two separate elements. First, the wording of the warning had to be 

"adequate" to properly inform of the danger involved. Second, the medium for 

conveying the message had to be "effective" -- that is, "adequate" to convey the message. 

(continued ... ) 

- 18-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 19 
proposition that a reasonable manufacturer would have placed a warning in black on the 

side of the tire. Where the Meyerhoffs' own expert testimony pointed all one way, a jury 

could not reasonably reject that testimony while simultaneously returning a verdict in the 

Meyerhoffs' favor. Cf. Humes, 792 P .2d at 1043 (no genuine issue of fact on adequacy 

of warning where plaintiffs' own experts testified warning was adequate); Lorbeer v. 

Weatherby, 376 P.2d 926, 930 (Kan. 1962) ("A jury is not authorized arbitrarily ... to 

disregard uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony, nor to disregard the only evidence 

upon a material question in controversy and return a verdict in direct opposition."); see 

also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 252 (1986) Gudgment as a 

matter of law appropriate where evidence is "so one-sided" that a jury could reach "but 

one reasonable conclusion"). 

While the ultimate determination of the adequacy of any warning is for the fact 

finder, the decision must be based on the evidence in the case. We find the jury's 

decision to be unsupported in light of that evidence. The Meyerhoffs' experts failed to 

establish that Michelin could feasibly have produced an adequate warning on its tire. 

5

( ... continued) 

The Meyerhoffs' evidence tended to establish that Michelin could have formulated 

a warning with appropriate wording and placed it in black on the side of the tire. The 

thrust of their argument on appeal is that such evidence is a proper basis for reversal. But 

no reasonable jury could find the proffered warnings to be "adequate" unless they 

accepted the black-on-black medium as adequate to convey the message-- a position 

rejected by the Meyerhoffs' own witnesses. 

- 19-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 20 
Consequently, no reasonable jury acting solely on the basis of the evidence at trial could 

have found that Michelin acted negligently in limiting its "circumferential wrinkling" 

warnings to its literature and omitting such warnings in black from its black sidewalls. 

The district court therefore correctly concluded that Michelin was entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law. 

3. Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial 

Lastly, the Meyerhoffs submit they are entitled to a new trial. They argue that the 

district court erred in prohibiting the jury from considering punitive damages and in 

excluding evidence to support that claim. They further argue the jury committed 

misconduct in its deliberations. We find each of these arguments to be moot in light of 

our holding that the case as tried left nothing for the jury to decide. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District 

Court for the District ofKansas.6 

6

Because of our disposition of the Meyerhoffs' appeal, we need not reach the 

merits ofMichelin's cross-appeal. 

-20-

Appellate Case: 94-3205 Document: 01019279149 Date Filed: 10/10/1995 Page: 21