Case: Cooper tire & RUbber v Mendez (the Legal Environment of Business) Mendez was driving a minivan with 6 passengers when a rear tire made by Coope tire lost its tread. Mendez lost control and rooled the minivan. 4 passengers were killed. Examination of the tire showed that a nail punctured it. The survivors sued Cooper for product defect. A jury awarded over $11 million in damage; the appeals court affirmed. Cooper appealed.
1) the Texas high court held that the expert testimony relied upon by the plantiffs to establish their case was not reliable. Why did the court not order a new trial?
2) The jury believed the expert testimony prsented for plantiffs. Why did their judgment not stand?