Lisa Keene-McPeters v. Cooper Tire & Rubber, No. 07-15729 (11th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 07-15729 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ DEC 16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN D. C. Docket No. 05-02102 CV-T-26-TGW CLERK LISA KEENE-MCPETERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (December 16, 2008) Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and COHILL,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: _______________________ *Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We readily conclude that the evidence amply justified the jury instruction submitting to the jury the issue of the government standard defense. The express language of the federal standard indicates that it was designed to prevent the type of harm that allegedly occurred i.e., tread separation. Moreover, the express language of the federal standard indicates that it was intended to apply as well to radial tires. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit into evidence the 2002 bulletin concerning the federal standard and the 2007 revision thereof. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the scope of discovery. With respect to the district court s decision declining to admit into evidence the adjustment data, we conclude that the plaintiff did not preserve that issue for appeal. Alternatively, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Other arguments raised on appeal are rejected without need for further discussion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
