## Facts

- Roger D. Cisneros, a tire service repairman, was sent to a construction site to repair a patched tire on a front-end loader.
- The tire was manufactured by Dico Tire, Inc. and had been patched multiple times.
- Cisneros patched another hole, remounted the tire, and inflated it to seat the beads (initially 4–5 psi, then about 35 psi, within the 50 psi rating).
- Cisneros did not use a safety restraining device available in his truck during inflation.
- After inflation, Cisneros stood the tire upright; it fell flat, and as he leaned toward it, the side facing the ground separated from the wheel, propelling the tire upward into his face.
- Cisneros suffered injuries to his nose, lips, and teeth.
- Cisneros alleged (1) strict liability design defect, (2) strict liability manufacturing defect, and (3) negligence based on inadequate post-manufacture inspection.
- Cisneros presented expert testimony from a tire engineer who attributed the failure to a defective bead that could “hang up,” trap air, and release explosively at ordinary pressures; the expert relied on physical inspection, observations of bead “dishouts,” and X-rays showing gaps in the bead area.

## Issues

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings of design defect, manufacturing defect, producing cause, and negligence/proximate cause.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the plaintiff’s expert testimony as reliable and non-speculative on defect and causation.
3. Whether alleged errors concerning jury submissions, argument, cross-examination, or prejudgment interest required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Cisneros.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support findings that the tire had design and manufacturing defects that were producing causes of Cisneros’s injuries.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that Dico was negligent in failing to use reasonable inspection procedures and that this negligence proximately caused the injury.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert’s testimony; it was grounded in experience, examination of the tire, X-rays, and engineering analysis, and supported a reasonable probability of causation.
- The remaining complaints (charge, argument, evidentiary rulings, and interest) did not show reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability requires proof that (1) a design or manufacturing defect existed when the product left the manufacturer, (2) the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, and (3) the defect was a producing cause of the injury.
- Design-defect liability may be supported by risk–utility evidence, including proof of a feasible safer alternative design; evidence that a product often functions without incident does not negate defect as a matter of law.
- A manufacturer may be liable in negligence for failing to use reasonable inspection practices that would detect defects before products leave its control, when the failure supports a finding of proximate cause.
- Legal sufficiency is satisfied by more than a scintilla of supporting evidence; factual sufficiency review overturns a finding only if it is clearly wrong and unjust in light of the entire record.
- Expert causation testimony must rest on a reliable foundation and demonstrate reasonable probability, not speculation; physical evidence and corroborating testimony may support reliability and admissibility.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict finding Dico liable for a tire explosion based on sufficient evidence of bead-related design and manufacturing defects and negligent inspection, and it sustained admission of experience-based expert testimony linking the bead condition to the explosive separation at ordinary inflation pressure.


Dico Tire, Inc. v. Cisneros, 953 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, writ denied)