Supreme Court to hear Goodyear damage case

WASHINGTON (Sept. 30, 2016) — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal by Goodyear and two attorneys who represented the tire maker in a $2.74 million damage award.

Basil J. Musnuff filed a writ of certiorari June 7 with the high court on behalf of himself, Goodyear and fellow attorney Graeme Hancock. The court granted the writ Sept. 29, according to the court's website.

The damage award came in connection with a 2005 product liability lawsuit filed by the late Leroy Haeger.

Mr. Haeger and his family were injured in the 2003 crash of his motor home. He claimed that the failure of a Goodyear G159 original equipment tire mounted on the vehicle was to blame for the crash, and that the tire was not designed to be mounted on a motor home. Mr. Haeger died a number of years after the accident from unrelated causes.

Goodyear and the Haegers announced a settlement on April 24, 2010, the first day of trial before the Arizona federal district court. Two years later, however, the court accused Goodyear and Messrs. Musnuff and Hancock of withholding relevant testing data and then lying about it.

Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the Arizona court ordered Goodyear and the attorneys not only to pay damages, but also to file a copy of her decision with any court considering a case involving a G159 tire. Goodyear could petition on a case-by-case basis to be excused from the latter requirement, she ruled.

In July 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold Judge Silver's ruling.

Akron-based Goodyear, along with Messrs. Musnuff and Hancock, are asking the Supreme Court in two separate filings to vacate Judge Silver's ruling. Both filings argue that the court denied the plaintiffs their due process rights, and that it erred in relying on its inherent authority to impose sanctions for non-disclosure of documents without issuing an order compelling plaintiffs to produce the documents.

The cases are 15-1406, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, and 15-1491, Musnuff v. Haeger.

To reach this reporter: [email protected]