Opinion ID: 894743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grogan

Text: Richard Grogan conceded that he is not a chemist, an engineer, or a tire designer. He obtained an ordinary national certificate, the British equivalent of a high school diploma, and holds no post-secondary degrees. He does not consider himself an expert in accident reconstruction. He worked for many years for the Dunlop Tire Company in England, in its technical department, tire examination lab, and technical service section, where he examined tires including tires that had failed. He left Dunlop in 1980. He has taught courses to police departments and independent accident investigators on tire failures. In 1987 he published a book entitled An Investigator's Guide to Tire Failures. This book was revised and expanded in 1999. He has also written many articles on tire failures. Grogan opined that the tire separated because the skim stock was contaminated. He believed hydrocarbon wax was the contaminant. He testified that the tread separation did not originate at the nail hole because he detected polishing in other portions of the tire's layers, indicating that the separation started elsewhere. He described his observation of polishing at one point in his testimony as seeing how the rubber has been removed from the cords and then left quite bright and clean. He also asserted that the presence of liner marks, left by the canvas or other material on which rubber is placed before vulcanization, was further visual proof of his theory. [2] The presence of these marks, in his opinion, indicated faulty adhesion. Grogan also offered reasons that the tire did not fail due to the nail, excessive vehicle weight, under-inflation, or ordinary wear. Assuming that Grogan was generally qualified to testify on the subject of tire failures, he presented a theory of wax contamination that was unreliable and should not have been admitted. Although the Robinson factors are not always useful in evaluating expert testimony in automobile accident cases, see, e.g., Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 727, and although they do not provide a perfect template for evaluating the admissibility of Grogan's testimony, we turn to them initially for some guidance. As to the first and third Robinson factorsthe extent to which the theory has or can be tested, and whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and/or publicationthe record is devoid of any scientific testing or peer-reviewed studies confirming the hypothesis that wax contamination causes radial tire belts to separate. See Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d at 905-06 (holding, in an automobile accident case, that expert testimony was unreliable because, among other reasons, the expert did not conduct tests or cite studies to support his theory). The only publication Grogan could cite as supporting his theory was his own book's support for the proposition that liner marks are indicative of poor adhesion. It is unclear from the record whether he was referring to his first book or his second book; the first was not truly peer-reviewed, [3] and the second was reviewed by a Mr. Sachs, [4] who actually disagreed with the Grogan's opinions regarding adhesion. Considering the second Robinson factorthe extent to which the technique relies upon the subjective interpretation of the expertwe note that Grogan conducted nothing in the nature of a quantitative analysis of wax contamination, such as calculating the amount of wax improperly deposited on the skim stock or the amount necessary to cause a tire malfunction. He offered no testimony that the scientific community has determined the amount of wax needed to cause a tire failure. He admitted in his deposition that he had not done any type of mathematical calculations with respect to anything in this case. See Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d at 904 (noting that expert failed to perform calculations in support of his theory); Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 559 (holding that expert's testimony regarding contamination of fungicide was unreliable where expert had no knowledge as to what amount or concentration of [contaminants] would damage pecan trees). As to the fourth Robinson factor, the technique's potential rate of error is unknown because no testing of Grogan's wax contamination theory has been done. The fifth Robinson factor asks whether the underlying theory or technique has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community. The record is devoid of proof that Grogan's theory has achieved such general acceptance. There is no evidence of a general acceptance in the scientific community that wax contamination is a cause of tire belt or tread separations, or that liner marks and polishing are accepted as proof of such a theory. The sixth Robinson factor looks to the non-judicial uses which have been made of the theory or technique. Plaintiffs offered no proof that, outside of the world of litigation, the industry and expert community have recognized wax contamination as a cause of belt separation. The pending case stands in contrast to cases where plaintiffs successfully offered non-judicial evidence of the alleged defect. E.g., Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 844-45 (Tex.2000) (evidence of helicopter bearing contamination included FAA report prepared after earlier crash, and manufacturer tests conducted after that crash); Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328, 333 (Tex.1998) (alleged tire bead defect supported by patent application); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Hopkins, 548 S.W.2d 344, 347 (Tex.1977) (internal manufacturer correspondence documented efforts to change carburetor design and indicated that engineers considered change an urgent safety matter), overruled in part on other grounds by Turner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 851 (Tex.1979), and Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414, 428 (Tex. 1984). Grogan's theory was also deficient because it postulated that the inner surfaces of the tire had been contaminated with wax, but the foundational proof of such contamination was lacking. See Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 714 (If the foundational data underlying opinion testimony are unreliable, an expert will not be permitted to base an opinion on that data because any opinion drawn from that data is likewise unreliable.). Plaintiffs failed to prove through direct evidence the occurrence of such contamination or a plausible basis for inferring that such wax contamination occurred. Grogan relied on a report prepared by British testing company RAPRA Technology Ltd., although Grogan conceded that, not being a chemist, I certainly don't understand the chemistry in the report and [t]he detail of it passes me by. [5] The report, based on an examination of samples of the tire, found wax on the skim stock. The report, however, citing two published articles, notes the migratory nature of hydrocarbon waxes and postulates, in direct contradiction of Grogan's theory, that the wax might have been present on the exterior surface of the tire and migrated over time into the areas tested. It expressly concludes that the wax detected on the failure surfaces may have migrated through from the tread, where wax is intentionally applied, and that further testing (which was not done) would assist in resolving this uncertainty. The report notes, and the experts on both sides agreed, that wax compounds are intentionally applied to the exterior tread and sidewall surfaces of tires to provide protection from ozone. One of Cooper Tire's experts, Harold Herzlich, a chemical engineer and former tire compounder, [6] explained that the wax components identified in the RAPRA report included a compound known as 6PPD, an antiozonant Cooper Tire applies to exterior surfaces, thus indicating the migration of the wax compounds through the layers of the tire. Herzlich and two other Cooper Tire experts, Jerry Leyden, a chemist and former tire compounder, [7] and Jean Hoffman, the chief chemist at the plant where the tire was manufactured, [8] testified that wax migration is a normal, expected, and well-understood phenomenon, that it occurs during the manufacture and throughout the life of the tire, and that wax migration was not indicative of a defect. Weighing conflicting admissible evidence is of course a matter for the jury, but we may consider the testimony of these opposing experts because an appellate court conducting a no-evidence review cannot consider only an expert's bare opinion, but must also consider contrary evidence showing it has no scientific basis. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 813 (Tex.2005). [I]f an expert's opinion is based on certain assumptions about the facts, we cannot disregard evidence showing those assumptions were unfounded. Id. Grogan's reliance on a report that undermines his hypothesis is another reason for concluding that his testimony was unreliable. Cf. Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 730 (Dr. Palmer's testimony is based on epidemiological studies that conclude just the opposite.). Grogan postulated that the wax contamination found in the RAPRA report could have come from cutting machinery. This opinion was speculation on his part. He did not visit the Cooper Tire plant and has not visited an American manufacturing plant since leaving Dunlop in 1980. The RAPRA report on which he relied does not conclude that the wax was a form of contamination, but instead states that the wax could have migrated from other parts of the tire. Grogan purported to rely on testimony of Hoffman and Richard Angell [9] for his conclusion that wax contamination originated with machinery at the Cooper Tire plant. However, Hoffman, the chief chemist at the plant, testified that the waxes found in the RAPRA are not used to lubricate machinery, that waxes make poor lubricants, and that stearic acid (essentially soap) is used instead. Stearic acid has a much shorter carbon chain than the waxes identified in the RAPRA report. Angell had referred to the use of wax on cutting machinery in his deposition, but Angell has no chemistry background and admitted that he did not know what the substance actually was. Hoffman explained that what employees sometimes refer to as wax is actually stearic acid. Other plant employees confirmed that the substance used to lubricate the machinery was stearic acid. Plaintiffs' expert Jon Crate testified that the RAPRA report did not find stearic acid on the tire. There was no evidence that stearic acid causes adhesion problems in tires; Herzlich explained that stearic acid is put in virtually every rubber stock that's cured with sulfur, and 95-98 percent of the stocks in tires are sulfur cured. Grogan's reliance on Angell and Hoffman for his wax contamination theory was as a factual matter unreliable. We are not required . . . to ignore fatal gaps in an expert's analysis or assertions that are simply incorrect. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d at 912. See also Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex.1995) (When an expert's opinion is based on assumed facts that vary materially from the actual, undisputed facts, the opinion is without probative value and cannot support a verdict or judgment.). In addition, Grogan's testimony lacked proof that hydrocarbon wax will cause lack of adhesion between the components of the tire after the tire is cooked in the vulcanization process. He stated that he had not conducted testing nor was he aware of any testing of the effect of wax on tire adhesion. He admitted that he was not a chemist or chemical engineer, or a specialist in the area of rubber chemistry. Further, Grogan offered no theory as to how the tire could be used for 30,000 miles, and suffer a nail puncture at some point, without failing if wax was improperly deposited on the skim stock during the manufacturing process and the tire was defective when it left Cooper Tire's plant. For all of these reasons, we conclude that Grogan's wax contamination theory amounted to no more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557. His explanation for the tire failure was a naked hypothesis untested and unconfirmed by the methods of science and was legally insufficient to establish a manufacturing defect that caused the failure.