Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DEFENSES TO LIABILITY—MOTOR VEHICLES—E.D. Tex.: Tire maker wins summary judgment in driver’s tread separation accident case, (Feb 20, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The driver failed to present any competent evidence to show that the manufacturer negligently designed or manufactured the tire at issue.

In an action brought against a tire manufacturer by a driver whose vehicle was struck by tread debris from the tire of a truck driving alongside her, a federal district court in Texas granted summary judgment to the manufacturer. The woman’s negligent design and manufacture claims failed because she did not designate any expert witnesses to establish defect, causation, or the existence of a safer alternative design; her circumstantial evidence did not identify a specific defect or rule out alternative causes of the accident; and the subject tire’s destruction could not be attributed to the manufacturer (Abedian v. Yokohama Tire Corp., No. 4:25-cv-512 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2026)).

Background. In May 2023, a woman was travelling northbound on Interstate Highway 35 alongside a man driving a truck, when a tread from one of the truck’s tires detached while in motion, striking her vehicle and causing serious damages. The truck was owned by KAG Leasing, Inc., KAG Specialty Products Group, LLC, or Transport Resources, Inc. (collectively, owners). The tire at issue, identified as a Yokohama TY517 manufactured by Yokohama Tire Corporation (YTC or manufacturer), was destroyed after the accident and was unavailable for inspection or analysis. The driver filed suit asserting negligence claims against the driver and owners, vicarious liability against the owners, and negligent design and manufacture claims against YTC. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, arguing the woman lacked expert testimony and other evidence necessary to prove her products liability claims.

Legal standard. Under Texas law, a plaintiff asserting a design defect must prove that the product was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, that a safer alternative design existed, and that the defect caused the injury” per Goodner v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., 650 F.3d 1034, 1040 (5th Cir. 2011). To prevail on a manufacturing defect claim, the plaintiff had to show that the tire deviated from its intended specifications, was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the manufacturer’s control, and such defect was a producing cause of the injuries per Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004). The propounding party must prepare a “disclosure” regarding any expert witness who does not provide a written report, as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(c).

Product defect. YTC argued that since the driver did not designate any expert witnesses to opine on the required safer alternative design and explain how the product deviated in its design rendering it unreasonably dangerous, her negligent design and manufacturing claims failed as a matter of law. The woman did not dispute that she failed to timely designate an expert witness but asserted that under Texas law, expert testimony is greatly encouraged but not required to prove negligent design or manufacture claims. The court referred to Velasquez v. EAN Holdings, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-1656-BH, 2018 WL 5924037, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2018), in which the court held that “[d]etermining the actual cause of a tire blowout necessarily ‘involves the use of specialized equipment and techniques unfamiliar to the ordinary person.’” Further, “whether the tire contained a defect and whether that defect caused the accident involves complex questions of chemistry, engineering and physics beyond the general understanding and common knowledge of laypersons” per Romo v. Ford Motor Co., 798 F. Supp. 2d 798, 810 (S.D. Tex. 2011). Accordingly, expert testimony was required to prove her claims, especially since the mere “fact that an injury occurred does not, itself, establish that a product was defective or that it caused the injury.” Fish v. Siebert, No. 6:23-CV-773-DTG, 2025 WL 2618562, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2025). Since the driver could not establish the essential elements of her claims without expert testimony, the product liability claims could not proceed.

Spoliation. The woman contended that because the tire was destroyed, the jury should reasonably infer that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to YTC. The court rejected this contention, explaining that spoliation sanctions require proof that the defendant controlled the evidence, had a duty to preserve it, and intentionally destroyed it in bad faith per Coastal Bridge Co., L.L.C. v. Heatec, Inc., 833 F. App’x 565, 574 (5th Cir. 2020). The driver did not allege that YTC possessed or destroyed the tire and acknowledged that other defendants were responsible for its destruction. Accordingly, no adverse inference against YTC was warranted, and the absence of the tire did not relieve her of her burden to produce expert testimony establishing a defect.

Circumstantial evidence. The woman pleaded that due to the non-existence of this key piece of evidence, circumstantial evidence must be relied upon to determine how the tire was defective and who was responsible for said defect. She presented photographic evidence showing the tire separation, tire maintenance and repair records, and deposition testimony confirming uncertainty about retreading and proper maintenance. The court held that this evidence actually undermined her negligent manufacture claim because it implied that the tire’s condition changed after it left YTC’s control. Further, the circumstantial evidence failed to identify a design defect that was the producing cause of the accident. Because the driver did not provide any proof other than the existence of the accident itself and did not rule out other possible causes of the tire’s failure, her claims failed and summary judgment was granted to the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s motions to dismiss and to exclude expert testimony were denied as moot.

The case is No. 4:25-cv-512.

Judge: Mazzant, A.

Attorneys: Zohra Mavani (Daspit Law Firm) for Laila Abedian. James William Karel (Pappas Grubbs Price PC) for Brian Mueller.

Companies: Yokohama Tire Corporation

Cases: CourtDecisions MotorVehiclesNews DefensesLiabilityNews DesignManufacturingNews TexasNews