## Facts

- Kevin Lowell Meyerhoff, a truck driver, operated a Michelin truck tire in a substantially underinflated condition.
- While attempting to repair, reinflate, and remount the tire, it exploded and killed him.
- Kevin’s parents sued Michelin under Kansas negligence law, alleging failure to adequately warn of the danger of reinflating a tire that had been run underinflated.
- The case was tried to a jury solely on warning theories, not on design or manufacturing defect.
- The jury considered two alleged warning failures: (1) inadequate sidewall warning on the tire, and (2) inadequate warnings in literature intended to accompany the tire.
- Plaintiffs presented expert testimony proposing a more specific warning on the tire sidewall about the explosion risk after underinflation; the expert advocated conspicuous presentation, including use of yellow lettering, but could not testify to the technical feasibility of yellow lettering.
- Evidence included testimony about other manufacturers placing warnings on tire sidewalls (generally in black), which the expert characterized as incomplete but indicative that on-product warnings were used in the industry.
- The jury found Michelin at fault for inadequate sidewall warnings but not at fault for inadequacy of accompanying literature.
- Under Kansas comparative fault, the jury allocated fault: Michelin 11%, Kevin 14%, a dealer 10%, and the employer/owner of the truck and tire 65%.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could find Michelin negligent for failure to provide an adequate warning on the tire sidewall under Kansas law.
2. Whether the evidence required judgment as a matter of law for Michelin under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).
3. Whether the verdict or asserted trial errors warranted a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.

## Decision

- The court denied Michelin’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b)).
- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial (Rule 59).
- The jury’s findings—fault on the sidewall-warning theory, no fault on the literature-warning theory, comparative fault apportionment, and damages—remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Judgment as a matter of law is proper only when the evidence, viewed favorably to the nonmovant, permits only one reasonable conclusion; the court may not reweigh credibility or substitute its view for the jury’s.
- Under Kansas negligence principles, a manufacturer has a duty to warn of non-obvious dangers associated with reasonably foreseeable use or misuse of its product.
- Warning adequacy, including both content and form (such as prominence and placement on the product), is generally a fact question for the jury when supported by competent evidence.
- Comparative fault under Kansas law permits apportionment among multiple actors, and a manufacturer may bear a partial share of fault if a warning omission is found to be a causal factor.
- A new trial under Rule 59 is warranted only when the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, results in a miscarriage of justice, or rests on prejudicial trial error.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s determination that Michelin was partially responsible under Kansas negligence law for failing to provide an adequate sidewall warning about the risk of explosion when reinflating a tire that had been operated while severely underinflated, and it declined to disturb the verdict through JMOL or a new trial.


Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F. Supp. 933 (D. Kan. 1994)