Case: Cooper tire and RUbber v Mendez (the Legal Environment of Business) Mendez was driving a minivan with 6 passangers when a rear tire made by Coope tire lost its tread. Mendez lost control and rooled the minivan. 4 passangers were killed. Examination of the tire showed that a nail punctured it. The surviviors 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? 250 words please no copy and paste