Facts

In April 1996, Sarkis Paronian purchased a used 1995 minivan from Keyes Mazda with 42,600 miles. On June
27, 1997, Keyes Mazda performed a tire balancing, alignment and rotation.
On July 31, 1997, Just Tires replaced two tires and put two new Goodyear tires on the van (which were on the
front axle at the time of the accident).
On Sept. 19, 1997, at approximately 4 p.m., Sarkis Paronian was driving the minivan (now with 57,000 miles)
on I-15 near Baker. After the vehicle descended the Baker grade, the right rear Yokohama Mohawk Chieftain
Steel Belted Radial tire experienced a tread belt separation. The vehicle first pulled to the right.
Sarkis Paronian steered to the left, lost control of the van, entered the dirt median, tripped and rolled three and
a half times. It came to rest on the shoulder of the northbound lanes of traffic. Sarkis Paronian was ejected from
the vehicle and was found about 15 feet from the vehicle. Sarkis Paronian died of massive head injuries.
The plaintiffs, the decedentÆs wife and two children brought this action against Yokohama
Tire Corporation and Keyes Mazda based on negligence, strict products liability, breach of
implied warranties; and against Just Tires based on negligence.

PLAINTIFF CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the Yokohama tire was on the vehicle when
purchased and was defectively manufactured because the skim coat between the steel belts was of insufficient
strength to prevent the belts from separating. The plaintiffs also contended that the tire was defectively
designed for failure to incorporate a nylon cap ply or belt edge cover on the tire.
According to the plaintiffs, the steering wheel vibrated at freeway speeds since the van was purchased due to
the alleged tire defect. The plaintiffs alleged that the decedent was traveling about 72 mph and was wearing his
seat belt at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs claimed that Keyes Mazda was negligent in failing to detect
the separation when it serviced the tire three months prior to the accident. They also claimed that Keyes
breached implied warranty for selling the vehicle with a tire that had a defect.
The plaintiffs maintained that Just Tires was negligent in not replacing the subject tire at the time it replaced
two tires in July 31, 1997, or detecting the tire problem.

DEFENDANT CONTENTIONS:
Defendant Yokohama Tire Corp. contended there was no defect in the tire, and
the separation was caused by chronic, long-term underinflated operation. The separation began a significant
amount of time before the accident. The tire was more than halfway worn out and there were physical signs of
tire abuse, including differential wear from the shoulders to the center of the tire, substantial rim grooving,
polishing of the rims and evidence of a previous puncture.
Defendant Keyes Mazda contended that the vibration complaint was fixed when they serviced the vehicle
through their alignment and balancing work. They also contended the separation was not visible at the time of
their service if the subject tire was on the vehicle at the time of their service.
Defendant Just Tires contended that the plaintiffs were never able to affirmatively show the subject Yokohama
tire was on the vehicle at the time they replaced two tires and therefore they owed no duty to plaintiff. Just
Tires argued that the subject tire was likely in the spare position at the time of their service because had they
notice the separation on one of the roadwheel tire positions, they would have recommended it be replaced and
sold four new tires.
Defendant Just Tires and Keyes Mazda disputed plaintiffsÆ claim that the decedent was properly wearing his
seat belt at the time of the accident. All defendants claimed that the decedent was traveling 80-85 mph and
overreacted in response to the separation. All defendants contended that the decedent separated from his wife
and family as plaintiff Karine ParonianÆs verified discovery responses indicated they resided apart for three and
a half years prior to the accident and Mr. Paronian utilized separate addresses thereafter.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs demanded $1.1 million to Yokohama Tire, $800,000 to Just Tires and $500,000 to Keyes Mazda. Defendant Yokohama Tire offered $30,000. No other demands or offers were made.

Damages

The plaintiffs asked for $2 million (non-economic damages) in closing argument. Plaintiff waived any claim to loss of economic support.

Other Information

<P>The court granted Yokohama Tire motion for judgment of nonsuit on plaintiffsÆ implied merchantability warranty claim at the close of plaintiffsÆ case. The court also granted Keyes MazdaÆs motion for nonsuit on plaintiffsÆ strict products liability at the close of plaintiffÆs case. The case went to the jury as to Yokohama, Keyes and Just Tires on the issue of negligence, strict liability as to Yokohama, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability as to Keyes.</P>

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

12-0 (as to all defendants on all causes of action)

Length

6.5 weeks