| |
72045: Kevin L. Cole, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, ... (Site not responding. Last check: ) |
 | | Goodyear argues there was no "competent evidence" it had knowledge or could have reasonably discovered the tire was dangerous at the time it entered the stream of commerce, or the lack of warning proximately caused plaintiff's injuries. |
 | | Goodyear's claim there was no "competent" or "admissible" evidence the tire in question was dangerous at the time it was sold is, in essence, a challenge to the admission of its memos and the five patents, as well as another attack upon the admission of Ewer. |
 | | Goodyear contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to enter remittitur of the compensatory damages award claiming it exceeds fair and reasonable compensation for plaintiff's injuries, as it exceeds his economic damages by $3.2 million, and claiming it is out of line with similar cases. |
| www.ssu.missouri.edu /courses/AgEc256/colevgoodyear.htm (6166 words) |