## Facts

- A 2000 Mercury Mountaineer equipped with Cooper tires allegedly suffered a tread separation while being driven by Annette vonGartzen, causing a rollover crash.
- Gregory Darrell von-Gartzen, a passenger, was killed; Annette was injured.
- Plaintiffs sued Cooper for alleged tire defects (manufacturing and design) and related negligence theories, and sued Ford for alleged vehicle defects and negligent failure to warn.
- Plaintiffs’ primary liability evidence against Cooper was expert testimony from mechanical engineer Dennis Carlson, who inspected the tire remnants, conducted x-ray analysis, tested the vehicle’s other tires, visited Cooper’s plant, and relied on industry testing and literature.
- Carlson opined the tire’s design (including inner-liner and belt/adhesion features) could contribute to tread separation and identified feasible safer alternative design measures; he also considered and sought to exclude other potential causes such as age and service history.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of a Cooper tire manufacturing defect to survive summary judgment under Georgia law.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of a Cooper tire design defect, including feasible safer alternative designs and causation, to proceed to a jury.
3. Whether plaintiffs’ negligent testing and misrepresentation claims against Cooper were supported and preserved.
4. Whether plaintiffs could prove Ford’s negligent failure-to-warn claim, including causation based on reading/reliance on a warning.
5. Whether plaintiffs had viable independent Georgia-law negligence claims against Ford for testing, inspection, assembly, marketing, advertising, labeling, or misrepresentation.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ summary-judgment motions under Rule 56.
- As to Cooper:
  - Granted summary judgment on manufacturing-defect claims.
  - Denied summary judgment on design-defect theories and related negligence claims supported by admissible expert evidence creating genuine disputes of material fact.
  - Granted summary judgment on negligent testing and misrepresentation claims.
- As to Ford:
  - Granted summary judgment on negligent failure to warn.
  - Granted summary judgment on other asserted negligence theories as not independently viable or sufficiently supported under Georgia law.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the nonmovant’s favor.
- Under Georgia products-liability law, a manufacturing-defect claim requires evidence the specific product deviated from the manufacturer’s specifications or intended design; tread separation alone, without proof of deviation, is insufficient.
- Design-defect claims may proceed where admissible expert testimony identifies design-related risk mechanisms, addresses causation, and supports feasible safer alternative designs.
- Claims may be treated as abandoned when a party fails to substantively respond to summary-judgment arguments on those theories.
- For negligent failure to warn under Georgia law, causation generally requires proof the user read or relied on the warning and that an adequate warning would have prevented the injury; lack of warning exposure defeats causation.

## Conclusion

The court allowed plaintiffs’ design-defect-based claims against Cooper to proceed on the strength of expert evidence creating jury questions, but dismissed Cooper manufacturing-defect, negligent testing, and misrepresentation claims and eliminated Ford from the case by granting summary judgment on failure-to-warn and other asserted negligence theories.


Mascarenas v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 643 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Ga. 2009)