Amicus Curiae Brief — Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

AUG 25 1998

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1997

+

KUMHO TIRE COMPANY, LTD., ef al.

Petitioners,

v.

PATRICK CARMICHAEL, et ai.,

Respondents.

4

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

4

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF

STEPHEN N. BOBO, DONALD G. CARTER,

WILLIAM J. COAD, ERNEST L. DAMAN, JOHN D. GRAHAM,

NASHAN H. HuRT, A. ALAN MOGHISSI, FRANCESCO POMPEI,

JAMES R. WALLACE AND RICHARD WILSON

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

7

MARTIN S. KAUFMAN*

* COUNSEL OF RECORD

EpDwI L. Lewis, Il

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

205 EAST 42ND STREET, 9TH FLOOR

NEw York, NY 10017

(212) 573-1960

COUNSEL FOR AMICI CURIAE

Ill.

Table 5. ASTM Tests of Tire Components .. . . 37

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

page

CASES

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786,

125 L.Ed. 2d 469 (1993) ...... 0. cece ee eues passim

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 43 F.3d 1311

(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied _ __ US. __,

116 S.Ct. 189, 132 L.Ed.2d 126 (1995) ...........4. 8

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, __ US. __,

118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997)....... 9, 10

MISCELLANEOUS

ASTM Tire Component Tests .........- 66 ese ees 37

Carver, C. L., Schroder, D.C. and Tarquin,

A. J., INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING (1987) je cees 25

Florman, S. C. THE INTROSPECTIVE ENGINEER (1996) . 25

H. Petroski, TO ENGINEER IS HUMAN. THE ROLE

OF FAILURE IN SUCCESSFUL DESIGN (1985) ..... 24-25

WEBSTERS NEW COLLEGAITE DICTIONARY (1980) ... 15

1

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

This brief is submitted in support of the petitioners.'”

Amici are individuals who are engineers and

scientists. They have substantial experience in engineering

and applied and basic science. They believe strongly that

decisions involving scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge, including judicial decisions allocating

responsibility for injury, must be based on the best and most

reliable information. When the information upon which

those decisions are made purports to be based on scientific,

technical or other specialized expertise, it is vital that the

finders of fact not be exposed to testimony that is not based

on appropriate and acceptable methodology and thus may be

misleading.

INTEREST OF AMICI

As noted above, amici are scientists and engineers,

active in their respective professions. Two of them are past

presidents of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME), two are officers of the American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, one

is currently chair of the Environmental Engineering Division

of ASME. Others are active professional engineers. Some

of them hold doctorates in "basic" science, "applied science"

or engineering. All of them currently teach or formerly

taught engineering or science. Three of them are on the

faculty of Harvard University.

' Letters from all parties consenting to the filing of this brief

have been filed with the Clerk of this Court.

> Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amici curiae state

that this brief was not prepared, written, funded or produced by any

person or entity other than amici curiae or their counsel.

2

N. Bobo is a mechanical engineer with an

nnn ee SS

tires, and the application of nondestructive inspection to a

diversity of industrial problems. He holds numerous patents in

the field of nondestructive inspection and has written over a

hundred papers in that field, advancing tire technology. He is

President of Nondestructive oe oe

ganization devoted to application of nondestructive inspection

io tainatiy. Under FAA sponsorship, he assisted in

inspection qualification and certification standards for the FAA

aye inh, demeenmmnaiianieneneaie mapeeion

for Aircraft (1996); Visual Inspection for Aircraft (1994); and

Aircraft Propeller Maintenance and Inspection (1997). Under

sponsorship of Sandia National Laboratories he was a

consultant on creation and introduction of a new version of the

FAA's primary documents covering oversight of aircraft tires:

TSO C62, Aircraft Tires, AC 145-4 Inspection, Retread,

Repair, and Alterations of Aircraft Tires, and AC 20-97

Aircraft Tire Maintenance and Operational Practices. He

consulted for the US Air Force Landing Gear Dynamics Lab-

oratory, USAF Wright Laboratory on Aircraft Tire Retreading.

He recently completed a summary report entitled Nondestructive

Inspection of Tires, a survey of nondestructive inspection in the

tire industry. He has conducted failure analysis on all major air

carrier incidents involving tires and U.S. aircraft since 1978 as

well as several foreign incidents. As a staff consulting engineer

in tire technology and nondestructive inspection for the U.S.

Department of Transportation, Mr. Bobo co-authored a survey

on the availability of tires in the event of a military mobilization

for the U.S. Army. He is the author of a U.S. Government

monograph Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires. He has developed

two advanced ultrasonic inspection systems, one of which has

been used by a major retread equipment manufacturer for use

in truck tire retreading. Mr. Bobo conducted failure analysis on

the Firestone 500 which served in part as the basis for its

Bobo graduated U.S. Naval Academy in 1951. He is a member

of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

Committee of the American Consulting Engineers Council, past

Chairman of the Mechanical and Electrical Section of the

Metropolitan Washington (D.C.) Consulting Engineers Council,

and past Vice Chairman of the Consultative Council of the

National Institute of Building Sciences. He is also a member

of the Interprofessional Committee of the American Consulting

Engineers Council and the Committee on Advanced

Maintenance Concepts of the National Research Council of the

National Academy of Sciences. He was on the editorial board

of American Energy Week and on the board of advisors of

Plumbing Engineer. Mr. Carter has been on the faculty or

lectured at the University of the District of Columbia, the

University of Tennessee, Texas A&M University, the

University of Maryland, Catholic University and Howard

University. He has received numerous awards in the field of

4

William J. Coad is Chairman of the Board of The

McClure Corporation. He is a Vice President of the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE). He received his degree in Mechanical

Engineering from Washington University in 1957. He has as

a mechanical/electrical consulting engineer for the past 35

years, prior to which he worked as a design engineer, estimator

and corporate officer of a mechanical contracting company. He

is a registered professional engineer in 37 states. He has

served as a lecturer in Mechanical Engineering for 12 years at

Washington University in St. Louis, and, for 17 years as an

Affiliate Professor teaching graduate courses in Mechanical

Engineering and serving as a student thesis advisor in building

environmental systems design. Mr. Coad is a member of the

Consulting Engineer’s Council, the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and a Fellow in the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE). He is a Vice President of ASHRAE.

He received numerous awards from professional societies,

including an award for the best paper published by ASHRAE

in 1985, the Louise & Bill Holladay Distinguished Fellow

Award in 1989 and ASHRAE’s highest award for technical

achievement in 1996. Mr. Coad is an Honorary Member of Pi

Tau Sigma (Mechanical Engineering Honorary Society). He

has published numerous articles in United States and foreign

journals. He has written ENERGY ENGINEERING AND

MANAGEMENT FOR BUILDING SYSTEMS and he is a co-author of

PRINCIPLES OF HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR

CONDITIONING” published by ASHRAE. He is a member of

the Board of Editors of Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning

Magazine.

Ernest L. Daman is Chairman Emeritus of Foster

Wheeler Development Corporation and he previously served as

Chairman of the Board of Foster Wheeler Development

Corporation and before that as Director of Research of that

company. He also held the position of Senior Vice President

at its parent company, FWC. He is a Past President of

5

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Mr. Daman was

elected to the National Academy of Engineering. He is a

member of the American Association for the Advancement of

Science and Past Chairman of the American Association of

Engineering Societies. He is a Fellow of the Institute of

Energy (England). He served on several ASME committees as

member or chairman. Ernest Daman is the author of numerous

papers, and holds 18 patents. He was responsible for the

design and development of a combined steam gas turbine plant,

supercritical steam generators, environmental control processes,

and advanced high-efficiency power generation systems. He

received his B.M.E. from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn.

John D. Graham is Director of the Center for Risk

Analysis of the Harvard University School of Public Health and

Professor of Public Policy and Decision Sciences in the

Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard

University School of Public Health. He was previously

Director of the Center for Injury Control at the Harvard

University School of Public Health. Professor Graham's

doctoral dissertation was on “Automobile Safety: An

Investigation of Occupant-Protection Policies." He is the

author or editor of two books on automobile safety, and the

author or co-author of over 100 published articles and papers,

including numerous articles on automobile safety and crash

protection, and automobile safety regulation and policy. He has

been a member of the Highway Safety Study of the Strategic

Transportation Research Committee of the Transportation

Research Board of the National Research Council. He was a

member of the NHSTA Motor Vehicle Safety Research

Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In 1991 he was elected president of the Society for Risk

Analysis.

Nathan R. Hurt is vice president of IDM

Environmental Corp. Previously, he worked for Los Alamos

Technical Associates and the Goodyear Tire and Rubber

6

Company. He was president of the Goodyear Atomic

Corporation, a subsidiary of Goodyear Tire. He is a

mechanical engineer with 50 years of experience in the

chemical and nuclear industries. Nathan Hurt is a recent Past

Presidemt of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

His chemical industry experience includes design, construction

and plant management -- primarily in vinyl monomers and

copolymers, synthetic rubbers and resins, and polyesters. His

nuclear industry experience consists of project management,

facilities management, and marketing in uranium enrichment

and weapons plants. He is currently a member of the Nuclear

Engineering Advisory Board of Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the

University of Colorado and he is a registered professional

engineer in Ohio.

A. Alan Moghissi is President of the Institute for

Regulatory Science (RSI), a non-profit organization dedicated

to the idea that societal decisions must be based on the best

available scientific information. The activities of the Institute

include research, scientific assessment, and science education

at all levels-particularly the education of minorities. Dr.

Moghissi held positions at the U.S. Public Health Service and,

upon its formation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). He served in a number of capacities at EPA, including

Director of the Bioenvironmental/Radiological Research

Division; Principal Science Advisor for Radiation and

Hazardous Materials; and Manager of the Health and

Environmental Risk Analysis Program. After his retirement

from the EPA, Dr. Moghissi joined the University of Maryland

at Baltimore as Assistant Vice President for Environmental

Health and Safety; subsequently he was Associate Vice

President for Environmental Health and Safety at Temple

University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has been a

visiting professor at Georgia Tech and at the University of

Virginia. Dr. Moghissi’s research has dealt with diverse

subjects, ranging from measurement of pollutants to the

biological effects of environmental agents. A major segment of

- 7

his research has been on scientific information upon which

laws, regulations, and judicial decisions are based -- notably

risk assessment. He has published over 300 papers and several

books. He is the editor-in-chief of Environment International

and of Technology: Journal of The Franklin Institute, which is

one of America’s oldest continuously published journals of

science and technology. Dr. Moghissi is a member of the

editorial board of several other scientific journals. He is

chairmas of the Environmental Division of the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers. Dr. Moghissi received his

education at the University of Zurich, in Switzerland, and

Technical University of Karlsruhe in Germany, from which he

received a doctorate in physical chemistry.

Francesco Pompei is President of Exergen Corporation,

an engineering firm that designs, develops and manufactures

infrared scanners, instrumentation and control devices for

industrial and medical use. He holds undergraduate and

graduate degrees in mechanical engineering from M.I.T. He

is a doctoral candidate in the doctoral program in engineering

sciences at Harvard University. He is the holder of over 30

United States patents for radiation detection, temperature

measurement, fuel injection systems and heating technology.

He is the author or co-author of over 20 articles published in

peer reviewed journals, including the New Englaiid Journal of

Medicine, Medical Electronics, and Transactions of ASHRAE.

James R. Wallace is a Senior Vice President and

Director of Engineering and Science of Law Engineering and

Environmental Services, Inc. He was professor of engineering

at Georgia Institute of Technology from 1966 to 1978, where

he was a professor of civil engineering. He holds a Doctor of

Science degree in civil engineering from the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, and Master of Science and Bachelors

of Science degrees in Civil Engineering from the Georgia

Institute of Technology. He is a member of the American

8

Society of Civil Engineers, the American Geophysical Union,

the American Institute of Hydrology and other professional

ore He is a registered civil engineer in Georgia and

orida.

Richard Wilson is Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics

and former Chairman of the Department of Physics at Harvard

University. He is a member of numerous committees and is

consultant to numerous government and academic institutions

including the Physics Advisory Board of the National Science

Foundation, a member of the Breeder Reactor Safety

Committee of the Energy Research and Development

Administration, a consultant to the Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and

Lawrence Livermore laboratories, chairman of the Visiting

Committee on Radiation Medicine, Massachusetts General

Hospital and Director of the Sakharov Foundation. He is a

fellow or member of the American Physical Society, the

American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Society for

Psychical Research (London).

Amici are scientists and engineers who have studied the

issue of the role that scientific and engineering issues play in

public affairs and in particular the way in which they can

illuminate disputes between different persons or elements of

society in the courts of law. Some of the amici submitted a

brief in the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (hereafter

“Daubert”), the seminal case discussing the rule for

admissibility of expert scientific evidence. Amici support the

principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in that case, and

believe that those principles should have wide applicability at

the interface between science and law and policy.

Amici firmly believe that the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit incorrectly held, in substance,

that testimony as to the alleged failure of a technologically

produced object is not "scientific" and is not subject to the

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standards.

9

Amici also believe that the principles that govern the study of

reliability and failure of technical objects, systems and

components should, can, and to a considerable extent do,

follow identical or substantially similar scientific principles as

any application of these same principles to “basic” sciences

such as astronomy, physics and chemistry. Indeed, this is

already recognized by this Court in Daubert, which was not a

discussion of the principles that apply exclusively to a basic

science but comprehended issues of causation in which technical

knowledge is used to explain observed phenomena.

The decision of the District Court to exclude testimony

of plaintiffs’ expert was well within the scope of the guidelines

enunciated by this Court in Daubert and further endorsed and

explained in General Electric Co. v. Joiner, ___ U.S. __.,

118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (hereafter “Joiner”).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs-Respondents in this case are eight members of

the Carmichael family who were involved in a severe

automobile mishap when the rear right tire on their minivan

failed. That the tire failed and that this caused the accident

which in turn caused significant trauma to each of the

Carmichaels is not in dispute. The claim by the plaintiffs is

that the failure was caused by a manufacturing defect.

To establish that the tire failure was caused by a

manufacturing defect, plaintiffs proffered the testimony of one

witness, Mr. Dennis Carlson, an engineer employed as a tire

consultant. The district court excluded Mr. Carlson’s proffered

testimony about causation under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 403.

Since no other evidence was offered by plaintiffs on the issue

of causation, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for

summary judgement. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded,

holding that the district court erred in applying the Daubert

criteria to the proffered testimony of Mr. Carlson. According

to the Court of Appeals, Daubert standards apply only to

10

"scientific" and not to “non-scientific” evidence and the

judgment of tire failure, which the Circuit Court held to be

non-scientific. Carmichael v. Samyang Tire, Inc., 131 F.3d

1453 (11th Cir. 1997).

Carlson, the sole expert witness for the plaintiffs

testified that the tire had been driven for many thousands of

miles, that the tread depth was down to zero inches in places,

down from 10/32 of an inch when new. Carlson conceded that

the separation most likely began under a bald spot on the tire,

where the tread was completely worn. Transcript of deposition

of Dennis Carlson (hereafter "Carlson Tr.") at 488. The tire

had been punctured by a nail or screw during some point in its

life and the plaintiff's witness testified that the exterior holes

caused by the puncture had not been adequately repaired. See

Carmichael v. Samyang Tires, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1514, 1517

(S.D. Ala. 1996)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Court of Appeals incorrectly states that Daubert,

which has been elaborated upon by this Court in Joiner, is

inapplicable to this case. The decision of the Eleventh Circuit

is based on a fundamental mischaracterization of Daubert and

a flawed perception of engineering, in particular the field of

safety and reliability engineering.

Daubert itself, and Joiner which followed, applied the

“Daubert factors” to the assessment of causation of disease in

medical science. The Supreme Court did not suggested that

those principles or the scientific method itself are limited to

medical science, basic science, or any other science. Indeed,

those cases emphasized that Rule 702 and the trial court’s

responsibility for ersuring that expert testimony that purports

to be based on "scientific, technical or other specialized

knowledge” is reliable.

11

Analysis of device, component and system failure and

of safety generally are resolved in engineering using the

methodology outlined in Daubert: formulating an hypothesis,

testing the hypothesis, subjecting the hypothesis to review and

testing by others, often but not always through publication and

peer review, and, if appropriate, refinement of the hypothesis.

ARGUMENT

I. Daubert Applies Not Only to Testimony Grounded in

"Basic" Science, But to All Testimony Based on

Scientific, Technical or Other Specialized Knowledge

In this case, the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Alabama (reported at 923 F. Supp. 1514)

excluded the testimony of plaintiffs’ "tire failure expert"

because it deemed that testimony (given on deposition) to be

unreliable under the standards established in Daubert. The

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that

Daubert applies only to testimony of a "an expert who relies on

the application of scientific principles, rather than on skill- or

experience-based observation" as the basis of his opinion.

Carmichael v. Samyang Tire, Inc., 131 F.3d 1433, 1435 (11th

Cir. 1997).

The rational of the Court of Appeals is, we submit, a

misreading of Daubert and Rule 702. It creates an exception

to Rule 702 and Daubert that "swallows the rule." It also

results in a serious paradox and an anomaly that is impractical

and unworkable.

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.

579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed. 2d 469 (1993) (hereafter

"Daubert"), this Court concluded that Rule 702 of the Federal

Rules of Evidence provided the framework for the proper test

for admissibility of scientific and technical evidence.

12

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the trial judge

must ensure that any and all scientific, technical or other

specialized testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant,

but reliable.

The primary locus of this obligation is

Rule 702, which clearly contemplates some

degree of regulation of the subjects and theories

about which an expert may testify. /f scientific,

technical, or other specialized knowledge will

assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence

or to determine a fact in issue an expert "may

testify thereto."

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589-90, 113 S. Ct. at 2794-95 (emphasis

in original) (internal citations and footnotes omitted).

Rule 702 applies to “scientific, technical and other

specialized knowledge.” In clarifying the language of Rule

702, the Court in Daubert emphasized the word “knowledge,”

which “applies to any body of known facts or to any body of

ideas inferred from such facts or accepted as truths on good

grounds.” /d. at 590. (quoting Webster’s Third New

International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged

(1971) at 1252) (emphasis added).

In Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-95 this Court described

five non-exclusive factor, flexible test for district courts to

consider when assessing whether the methodology is

scientifically valid or reliable. These factors include:

(1) whether the expert’s theory can be or has been

tested;

(2) whether the theory has been subject to peer

review and publication;

(3) the known or potential rate of error of a

13

technique or theory when applied;

(4) the existence and maintenance of standards and

controls; and

(5) the degree to which the technique or theory has

been generally accepted in the scientific

community.

The major lesson of Daubert is that the district courts

must act as “gatekeepers” to ensure the “reliability” of expert

testimony submitted to the jury. 505 U.S., fn. 9 at 591. Rule

702’s “knowledge” requirement “connotes more than subjective

belief or unsupported speculation.” 505 U.S. at 591.

The criteria enumerated in Daubert were merely

hallmarks of "good science." When dealing with the field of

engineering or other technical disciplines, one or more of the

Daubert criteria may not be appropriate, but some of the

Daubert tests and perhaps other criteria should be applied.’

For example, in engineering "publication" and "peer review"

may not be customary with respect to product design or

manufacturing processes, which are often proprietary. But

testing is often an integral part of the design engineering

process.

The real question, therefore, is not whether Daubert

applies to expert tesiimony that does not relate to "science"

narrowly defined, but how to assure that all experts testify

based on valid and reliable knowledge from whatever field

might be pertinent.

> The Court itself stated that it did not intend to “presume

to set out a definitive checklist or test” and instead described the

criteria as "general observations.” 505 U.S. at 594, 113 S. Ct. at 2796.

14

It is most unlikely that a "scientific" issue that reaches

the courts will be one of theoretical science. Because legal

disputes arise in the everyday interactions of society, the

"science" issues that bear on legal adjudication will always or

almost always involve the application of scientific principles to

practical questions.

In cases involving the application of science to a

concrete and practical problem, such as to those involving

engineering principles, some of the factors articulated in

Daubert might not apply or might be less important, but given

the importance of testing in the design process -- a point which

plaintiff's expert conceded -- his failure-to test the failed tire or

to test similar tires produced using the same design and

manufacturing process rendered his testimony unreliable.

The goal should be to ensure that experts adhere to the

same standards of intellectual and methodological rigor that are

demanded in their professional work.

In many technical but not "pure" scientific professions,

processes analogous, but not identical, to the scientific method

have been developed. The methodologies of these professions

are often influenced by the methodologies of science and

provide objective criteria for ascertaining evidentiary reliability

of expert testimony proffered in these fields.

The underlying reason for Rule 702 is to ensure that the

expert testimony offered in court has been derived by the same

methodology and intellectual rigor demanded of experts in the

same field in their professional work. Professionals in many

non-scientific fields have developed standards and

methodologies for their work; the court can ensure the validity

of the expert’s methodology under Rule 702 by reference to

those standards. In fields of expertise in which technical

standards or methodologies already exist, a starting point is to

determine whether the expert has followed the recognized

methodology or standards of that professional field.

15

Engineering and similar fields of applied science are

prime examples of technical expertise in which the methodology

of science plays a central role. “Engineering” is defined by

WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (1980) as “the

application of science or mathematics by which the properties

of matter and sources of energy in nature are made useful to

man in structure, machines, products, systems, and processes."

Engineering predates modern science, but it has always

relied on experimentation and inventiveness, along with

practical knowledge and common sense. There is much overlap

between the fields of science and engineering, and present day

engineers use science extensively. In many ways engineering

is simply applied science. Other fields in which expert

witnesses often testify, such as accident reconstruction,

metallurgy, and fire investigation, also depend upon principles

of science. The characteristics of a piece of a given material

are measurable, testable and thus predictable if one knows the

external environment in which the material is to be used.

Although there are some differences between scientific

and technical knowledge, in a case where the expert opinions

could be substantiated by scientific or similar methodology the

factors expressed in Daubert are relevant and useful for

measuring the reliability of the expert’s testimony.

The goal, articulated in Rule 702 and in Daubert,

should be to assure that the techniques and methodologies used

by experts in the particular field in rendering an opinion for

court testimony are the same as those that an expert in the field

would use in reaching a professional opinion outside the

courtroom. Whatever the source of standards, Rule 702

requires that a witness’ testimony reflect the methods and

practices of the field of expertise at issue.

Under the Eleventh Circuit's analysis, oP a

attempts to apply the rigors of a scientific analysis to

inquiry is subject to more stringent review than one in the same

16

field who ignores logic, rigorous methodology and close

examination and instead relies on intuition and experience that

cannot be tested objectively. This, we submit, turns Rule 702

on its head and creates an exception to Daubert that is big

enough “to drive a Mack truck through."

As the Fifth Circuit observed in Watkins v. Telsmith,

Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 990 (Sth Cir. 1997)

[I]t seems exactly backwards that experts

who purport to rely on general engineering

principles and practical experience might escape

screening by the district court simply by stating

that their conclusions were not reached by any

particular method or technique. The moral of

this approach would be, the less factual support

for an expert's opinion, the better.

Il. THE DISCIPLINE OF FAILURE ANALYSIS IS

FOUNDED ON ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN OTHER

AREAS OF SCIENCE.

The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is

based on the proposition that the judgement of causation in tire

failure is not a science, that its methodology is not that of

science, and that consequently the evidentiary standards

enunciated by the Supreme Court in Daubert v Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals are not applicable. 126 F.3d 682.

The Court of Appeals’ error lies in the assumption that

the study of device safety and failure causation is not science

and does not need to follow scientific principles. The decision

disregards the existence of a well-established branch of

engineering that predicts the occurrence of accidents and their

causation.

17

The safety and reliability of a manufactured item is an

have developed methods to assess the quality of manufacturing

process by various tests that are routinely performed at

manufacturing plants.

Manufacture and testing of tires is an engineering

process. Testing for tire failure at the manufacturing stage is

in many respects similar to the testing performed for tires that

have been subjected to wear and tear. In fact manufacturers

rely heavily upon the evaluation of used tires in improving the

quality of manufacturing process. There are numerous objective

tests for evaluation of tire quality. The Appendix to this brief

lists consensus tests developed by the American Association for

Testing Materials that relate to testing of quality and properties

of tires.

The core of the decision of the Court of Appeals is

based on the erroneous assumption that a visual inspection by

an experienced individual suffices to unambiguously identify

faulty manufacturing.

The plaintiffs’ expert claimed that he looks for four

criteria in determining “whether a defect has caused the tire

failure.” “{He] looks for the following signs of overdeflection:

(1) greater tread wear on the shoulder than in the center of the

tire; (2) sidewall deterioration and discoloration (3) abnormal

bead grooving on the tire and (4) rim flange impression. .

‘When Carlson fails to find sufficient evidence of two of these

four indicators in a tire, he rules out overdeflection as a cause

of tire failure and, barring other evidence of abuse, concludes

that the loss of adhesion was prompted by a manufacturing or

design defect”. Carmichael v. Samyang Tires, Inc., 923

F.Supp. 1514, 1519 (S.D. Ala. 1996) (citing Carlson Tr. 250-

252, 278-279, 390).

Carlson examined the tire in issue for the first time on

the morning of his deposition. He performed no tests on the

18

tire that is accused of causing the accident, nor did he test any

of the other tires on the vehicle at that time. Carlson Tr. 328.

His analysis was limited to a visual inspection of the tire,

although he agreed that sectioning the tire could reveal

additional pertinent information. Carlson Tr. 381.

In his examination of the tire, Carlson observed some

evidence of uneven tread wear, sidewall deterioration, abnormal!

bead grooving, and rim flange impressions; however, he found

that the evidence with respect to each factor was either

insufficient to demonstrate overdeflection or that it was

attributable to causes other than overdeflection. Carlson Tr.

403-06, 445-46, 449-56. Based on this testimony, Carlson

asserted that there was no evidence of overdeflection in the tire.

Carlson Tr. 462.

After ruling out overdeflection and other forms of

abuse, Carlson concluded that the tire failure must have been

precipitated by a manufacturing or design defect in the tire.

However, neither the plaintiffs’ written submissions nor the

Court’s review of Carlson’s voluminous deposition transcripts

indicate that Carlson identified any affirmative evidence of a

defect in the tire. Stated differently, Carlson's expert opinion

that the tire failure was caused by a manufacturing or design

defect is founded on his determination that there is a paucity of

evidence of overdeflection or other abuse, rather than by his

ability to pinpoint any affirmative evidence of a defect.

It must be borne in mind that Carlson is a mechanical

engineer, and presumably his expertise derives from his

educational credentials and his prior employment with a major

tire manufacturer. Had been a carpenter or tailor who took up

“tire failure analysis" as a vocation, he would not, we are

Me net nig cr ee ee

his testimony should be subjected to close scrutiny for

adherence to professional standards.

19

Nowhere did Carlson provide any evidence that his

criteria are proven to be those needed to be considered, nor

does he provides any reason for his choice of accepting two of

these criteria (as compared to one, three or all four of them) as

sufficient to conclude that the tire failed because of a

manufacturing defect. Even if one were to accept Carlson’s

four criteria and his belief that two out of four were dispositive,

visual tests are subject to considerable interpretation.‘ For

example, what Carlson may consider to be discoloration

someone else may not. The engineering profession has

instruments that not only detects variations in color, but also

their magnitude or intensity.

The field of failure analysis is considerably more

developed than an arbitrary selection of four criteria, accepting

two out of four and relying upon visual inspection. During the

tire manufacturing process a number of tests are performed to

ensure tire quality. These include X-ray checks on tires for ply

cord spacing and belt lay up and a host of other tests shown in

the tables in the Addendum to this brief.

Carlson’s method for analyzing the tire is not

susceptible to independent testing or falsification. His method

is entirely subjective. See Carlson Tr. 276-284, 402. Carlson

described tests or other procedures that could be used to

corroborate or refute the results of his visual inspection of the

tire at issue, but he did not use any of them. Carlson Tr. 276-

278; 295-296; 302; 387-388.° When asked if there were any

* We emphasize that Carlson examined the failed tire only

on the morning of his deposition. He relied upon, and adopted

almost verbatim, the observations of his deceased colleague, without

having participated in his colleagues observation or analysis of the

tire.

* Although Carlson rationalized his failure to use these tests

because they would be unreliable after a tire had failed (Carlson Tr.

295-296), he did not explain why he did not do such tests on the other

20

chemical tests that he could have conducted on the tire, Carlson

responded, "I don’t think there are any that would apply to this

case." Carlson Tr. 388.

Carlson also conceded that there are no publications or

papers which have described or discussed (let alone approved)

his techniques for tire failure analysis. While he identified a

number of publications and research papers describing tests

which can be performed to assess the causes of abnormal tread

wear and asserted that he relied on such papers in his testimony

in this case, Carlson Tr. 285, he did not actually perform any

of the tests described in this literature on the tire in question;

he testified only that he "probably" relied on the information

provided in those documents as "background" for the work that

he did. Carlson Tr. 285, 287.

Carlson did not know whether his previous analyses of

failed tires using the same methodology were correct or not.

He did not test his methods in a controlled setting (and did not

know if anyone else had) to gauge their accuracy in correctly

distinguishing between overdeflected and defective tire

separations. Carlson Tr. 285-287.

Carlson conceded that there are a number of

publications and research papers regarding tests which can be

performed to assess the causes of abnormal tread wear.

Presumably he was referring to the ASTM® and ANSI tests that

are commonly used in the tire industry. Carlson was also

engaged in tire testing when he was employed by Michelin, a

tires on the vehicle or tires from the same manufacturing lot as the

one that failed to see if there were identifiable features of design or

production technique that led to failure. Carlson did not even testify

that other tires of the same type had a history of this kind of failure.

* A listing of relevant ASTM standards is provided in the

Appendix to this brief.

21

major tire manufacturer. However, he did not describe or

perform any objective test or measurement upon which relied

to demonstrate the cause of tire failure in this case.

There is substantial technical literature on assessment of

tire quality, tire safety and failure assessment. The engineering

profession, notably automotive and mechanical engineers, have

applied scientific processes for the life cycle of tires. This

includes assessment of causes of tire failure. The engineering

profession relies upon objective, verifiable and reproducible

technical information. Peer review and consensus processes are

as much the foundation of engineering as they are the

foundation of science. Accordingly, Daubert applies to

engineering as much as it applies to science.

The procedure adopted by Mr. Carlson (Carlson Tr.

303) seems superficially to follow a scientific method. For

example, he seems to consider possible causes of tire failure

and eliminate those which are not defects in manufacture.

While he made a colorful statement (Carlson Tr. 392), “well,

besides nuclear war that’s about all there is that causes tire

failure," he produced no publication, no statistical data, and

only the reading of other depositions as a justification for his

“proce _ or his conclusion (Carlson Tr. 303).

While, therefore, the Court of Appeals is correct in

referring to Mr. Carlson’s procedure as "unscientific," amici

believe that a more scientific procedure was possible, and that

admission of Mr. Carlson’s proffered testimony to a jury,

which might reasonably be expecting scientific testimony and

which might accord Mr. Carlson’s testimony the substantial

weight usually accorded "scientific" testimony, would only

cause confusion unless of course the jury were explicitly

warned that the testimony would be unscientific.

22

Ill. Engineering science follows the same principles as

other sciences.

The necessary attribute of any scientific theory,

including a discussion of failure and accidents, is

“falsifiability,” that is whether it can be tested. This was

emphasized by Sir Karl Popper, a philosopher of science quoted

by the Supreme Court in Daubert (509 U.S. at 593).’

A scientist's or engineer’s theory is useful only if it is

falsifiable or testable. Even if one were to accept the idea

(which the amici do not) that entirely different scientific

principles apply to a study of safety of technological devices,

systems and components (such as tires) than to other sciences,

this would not apply to the study of causation of accidents or

systems failure.

The object of a science may be said to be to

construct theories about the behavior of whatever it is that

the science studies. This aspect of science, the concoction

of theories, has no universal method, but once a theory has

evolved, perhaps from a half-baked idea to a precise and

unambiguous statement, the scientific method may be used

to judge the success or failure of a given theory or the

relative merits of competing theories. Theories are known

as hypotheses, and the process of judging them is called the

testing of hypotheses.

A scientific hypothesis is tested by comparing its

conclusions with the reality of the world as it is. Yet, no

matter how many examples of agreement one may collect,

they do not prove the truth of the hypothesis, for it may be

” K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of

Scientific Knowledge 37 (Sth ed. 1989) ("[The criterion of the

scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or

testability").

23

argued that one has not tested it in the single case where the

theory might fail to agree with reality. Just one instance of

disagreement between the hypothesis and reality, if shown

not to be the result of an error of experiment design,

observation or measurement, is sufficient to make the

hypothesis incontrovertibly false*. The current acceptance of

an hypothesis is no assurance of its continued success.

Engineering shares certain characteristics with

the positing of scientific theories, but instead of

hypothesizing about the behavior of a given universe,

whether of atoms, honeybees, or planets, engineers

hypothesize about assemblages of concrete and steel that

they arrange into a world of their own making. Each

building, bridge or other structure or mechanical system may

be considered to be a hypothesis in its own right. In

particular, one hypothesis of a structural engineer might be

that so and so bridge across such and such river under these

and those conditions of traffic and maintenance will stand

for so many years without collapsing. Now if such a bridge

were built and were to carry traffic year after year without

trouble, the hypothesis would be confirmed time and time

* To use the example of bees favored by the Court of

Appeals, that honeybees always build their hives with hexagonal cells

is a hypothesis that has accumulated so much verification that it is

hardly called a hypothesis anymore. It is assumed to be “fact.” But

if some apiarist discovers bees making octagonal cells, not only would

the hypothesis that bees always use the hexagon be forever smashed,

but there would also be quite a bit of excitement among the world of

honeybee experts. That the sun rises each morning may also be

considered a hypothesis, and our experience that indeed this happens

day in and day out serves to confirm, but not prove, the hypothesis.

All it would take would be a single "morning" without a sunrise to

make the contention that the sun rises every morning categorically

false. While it may be beyond our comprehension that this could

ever be the case, it nevertheless remains true that our belief that the

sun will rise tomorrow is basically a matter of faith rather than of

rigorously established fact.

24

again, but it will never be proven until the so many years

under the original plan had elapsed. But should the bridge

collapse suddenly under no extraordinary conditions before

those so many years were up, there would be no doubt that

the hypothesis was incorrect.

As Henry Petroski, Chairman of the Department

of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the School of

Engineering at Duke University, has written:

25

fail-proofness of a design can never be attained, for

we can never be certain that we have been

exhaustive in asking questions about its future.

The fundamental feature of all engineering

hypotheses is that they state, implicitly if not

explicitly, that a designed structure will not fail if it

is used as intended. Engineering failures may then

be viewed as disproved hypotheses. ... [T]he past

The process of engineering design may be

considered a succession of hypotheses that such and

such an arrangement of parts will perform a desired

function—without fail. As each hypothetical

arrangement of parts is sketched either literally or

figuratively on the calculation pad or computer

screen, the candidate structure must be checked by

analysis. The analysis consists of a series of

questions about the behavior of the parts under the

imagined conditions of use after construction.

These questions may be easily answered for designs

that are not particularly innovative, but a computer

may be required to perform all the calculations

needed to analyze a bold new design. If any of the

parts fails the test of analysis, then the design itself

may be said to be a failure. A design can be

altered by strengthening the weak link and then

analyzing the new design. The process continues

until the designer can imagine no possible way in

which the structure can fail under the anticipated

use. Of course, if the desigr sr makes an error in

calculation or overlooks some possibility of failure

or does not program the computer to ask the right

question, then the hypothesis will erroneously be

thought to have been verified when in fact it should

have been disproved. Absolute certainty about the

success of an engineering structure confirms the

hypothesis of its function only to the same extent

that the historical rising of the sun each morning

has reassured us of a predictable future.

H. Petroski, 10 ENGINEER IS HUMAN. THE ROLE OF

FAILURE IN SUCCESSFUL DESIGN (New York, 1985) at 44-45.

See also C. L. Carver, D.C. Schroder and A. J. Tarquin,

INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING 16 (1987); S. C. Florman,

THE INTROSPECTIVE ENGINEER 120-121 (1996).

Amici submit that there is no basis for different

treatment of studies of accident causation and modes of

component failure and other science evidence. While as this

Court recognized that important differences exist between

truthseeking in the courtroom and in the laboratory:

scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual

revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve

disputes finally and quickly. The scientific project

is advanced by broad and _ wide-ranging

consideration of a multitude of hypotheses, for

those that are incorrect will eventually be shown to

be so, and that in itself is an advance. Conjectures

that are probably wrong are of little use, however,

in the project of reaching a quick, final and binding

legal judgment--often of great consequence--about

a particular set of events in the past. We recognize

that, in practice, a gatekeeping role for the judge,

26

no matter how flexible, inevitably on occasion will

prevent the jury from learning of authentic insights

and innovations.

Laubert, 509 U.S. at 597, 113 S. Ct. at 2798-99.

The "scientific method" is not peculiar to "pure" science,

or to “applied” science or to disciplines which may be called

"science." It is a mode of thinking and comparing theory

[hypothesis] with reality [experimentation and observation]

that pervades modern thought, and is an integral part of fact

finding. It is, in short, a means for separating the objective

from the subjective.

Daubert instructs us that the district court must

determine admissibility under Rule 702 by acne the

directions provided in Rule 104 (a).

We believe that the district court in this case properly

exercised is gatekeeping function and correctly excluded the

testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, because that testimony

was entirely subjective, not based on any accepted scientific

or technical methodology, and thus unverifiable. In sum, it

was not reliable. Because it came from the mouth of a

professional engineer, the potential for misleading the jury

was great.

27

CONCLUSION

Daubert and its progeity give the district court discretion

to "keep the gate" for the purpose of admitting or excluding

opinion testimony. The district court did not abuse that

discretion in concluding that the causation evidence

proffered by Mr. Carlson should be excluded. It was within

the trial judge’s discretion to conclude that Mr. Carlson’s

testimony was not based on appropriate scientific principles

and methods as required by Daubert and its progeny, and,

therefore, was not sufficiently reliable for the jury to

consider.

Amici respectfully submit that this Court should reverse

the decision of the three-judge panel and affirm the

judgment of the district court.

Dated: August, 1998

Respectfully submitted,

MARTIN S. KAUFMAN,

Counsel of Record

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

205 East 42nd Street - 9th Floor

New York, New York 10017

(212) 573-1960

Attorneys for Amici Curiae Stephen N.

Bobo, Donald G. Carter, William J.

Coad, Ermest L. Damar, John D.

Graham, Nathan H. Hurt, A. Alan

Moghissi, Francesco Pompei, James

Wallace and Richard Wilson

28

ADDENDUM

TESTING OF TIRES

The combination of road, tire, vehicle, and driver forms one

system. The mechanical characteristics of the tire in contact

with the road must combine with the mechanics of the

vehicle to produce driver-friendly operational features for

the tire-vehicle system. With reference to the role of a tire,

it is necessary to distinguish between symmetric and anti-

symmetric modes of performance:

1. the tire supports the vertical axle load and transmits

longitudinal braking or driving forces;

2. the tire supplies the cornering and chamber forces

necessary for the directional control of the vehicle.

The usual components of a tire are listed in Table 1.

The tests for tires fall into two categories:

1. Mechanical characteristics of the tire such as:

e load deflection of a vertically loaded mounted

tire, load-carrying capacity, and load rating;

. steering properties as aligning torque, cornering

characteristics, tire lateral and tangential

stiffness;

e traction and wet skid performance;

« rolling resistance;

. noise;

2. Durability characteristics such as:

. tread wear, which encompasses slow wear rates,

fast wear rates, and uniformity of wear;

e casing fatigue resistance;

29

° heat buildup under loaded dynamic conditions;

° chipping, cutting, and tearing resistance of the

tread and sidewall.

Laboratory testing of tires requires as a preliminary step the

testing of the compounds. For compounds such as tread,

sidewall, wire coat compound, and liner, the tests include

determination of the kinetics of vulcanization, tensile

strength, resilience, and dynamic properties. Reinforcements

such as the ply cords are tested for tensile strength, creep

behavior, stability, and fatigue resistance. A list of the

ASTM tests is presented in Table 5. Much of the testing is

performed by robotics.

Testing of tires depends on the application for which the

tires were designed. The usual properties of interest are

listed in Tables 2 - 4. The laboratory equipment designed to

test these tire properties are based mostly on a steel flywheel

with the appropriate monitoring devices such as transducers

and infrared temperature monitors. Data are collected

directly into computers for real-time analysis and

downloading to the tire engineer's work station. Many of

these flywheels are also computer controlled so as to

simulate service conditions. For example, aircraft tires can

undergo a complete cycle of taxi, takeoff, and landing.

Proving ground testing allows all types of tires to be

tested under closely monitored conditions such as:

1. High-speed tracks;

2. Interstate highway simulation;

3. Gravel and unimproved roads;

4. Cobblestone;

30

Cutting, chipping, tearing courses;

Wet and dry skid pads;

Tethered tracks for farm tire durability;

Glass roads for footprint monitoring.

Computer-based simulations of tire testing are

frequently used before proceeding to the proving grounds.

Once a tire meets the requirements of the laboratory and

proving grounds tests, commercial evaluation is the following

step in the product R&D cycle.

Quality assurance, the last stage in the manufacturing

cycle, includes:

1.

2.

Buffing and trimming off mold flash from the tire;

Visual inspection of each tire for defects;

X-ray checks on tires for ply cord spacing and belt

layup;

Statistical sampling of tires for durability tests,

uniformity, and dynamic balancing. This testing includes

many of the R&D tests such as conicity, radial runout,

and lateral force variation.

31

TABLE 1. Components of a Tire

Tread:

Tread shoulder:

Tread base:

Sidewall:

Curb guard:

Beads:

Bead area:

The wear resistance component of the

tire in contact with the road. It must

also provide traction, wet skid, and good

Tread components consist of blends of

natural rubber, polybutadiene (PBD),

and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR),

compounded with carbon black, oils, and

The upper portion of the sidewall; it

affects tread heat dissipation and tire

comering properties.

The rubber compound used to ensure

good adhesion between belts and tread,

heat dissipati and low rolling

resistance.

It protects the casing from side scuffing,

controls vehicle/tire characteristics, and

assists in tread support. Its compounds

are natural rubber, SBR, PBD, carbon

black and oils.

The protrusion of rubber sidewall

running circumferentially around the tire

to protect it from scuffing on curbs.

The non-extensible steel wire loops which

anchor the plies and also lock the tire

onto the wheel assembly so that it will

not slip or rock on the rim.

Its components include; 1) the apex or

Plies:

Belts:

Shoulder belt

wedge:

Liner:

chipper, which protects the lower

sidewall; and 4) the flipper, which helps

hold the bead in place.

The textile or steel cords extending from

bead to bead and serving as the primary

reinforcing material in the tire casing.

The layers of textile or steel wire lying

under the tread and serving to stiffen the

casing.

The high-adhesive rubber compound in

the shoulder region between the belts

and casing; it improves tread wear and

durability.

The butyl rubber and derivatives of such

polymers which retain the compressed air

33

TABLE 2. Tire Properties

Cornering coefficient:

Force variation:

Lateral force:

Lateral force coefficient:

Runout:

the lateral force divided by the

vertical load at a 1° slip angle

tendency of a tire to pull to one

side because of off-center tire

components such as the belt

package

distribution of weight around a

tire or wheel assembly. The

uniform distribution of weight

around a tire will give a balanced

tire.

Periodic variation of the normal

vertical force of a loaded free-

rolling tire which repeats each

revolution.

A tire force in the lateral plane

developed primarily during

cornering.

The lateral force divided by the

vertical load.

The difference between maximum

and minimum indicator readings

as applied to radial and lateral

runout.

Radial runout:

Lateral runout:

Rolling resistance:

Self-aligning torque:

Slip angle:

Uniformity:

Speed rating:

34

The difference between the

maximum and minimum

measurements on the tread

surface and in a _ plane

perpendicular to the spin axis

while the tire is mounted on a

true wheel.

The difference between the

maximum and minimum

measurements parallel to the spin

axis at the widest point of each

tire sidewall on a true wheel.

The resistance of a tire to free

rolling.

The stabilizing reaction to slip

angle which helps the tire and

vehicle to return to neutral

conditions at the completion of a

maneuver.

The angle between the vehicle’s

direction of travel and the

direction in which the front

wheels are pointing.

A measure of the tire’s ability to

run smoothly and vibration free;

sometimes measured as tire

balance or radial and lateral force

variation.

Ratings are identified by letters.

(see Table 3).

Symbol

- 2° Az < SN

35

TABLE 3. Speed Ratings

Maximum speed

>162

162

149

130

118

112

81

75

Typical applicati

Super high-performance

High-performance spots

cars

High-performance cars

Performance luxury cars

Passenger cars

Passenger cars, light trucks

Trucks

Trucks

37

36 TABLE 5. ASTM Tests of Tire Compounds

TABLE 4. Desirable Properties of Tire Components ASTM test diediniaead

Tread Sidewall Plies Liner D 412 - Tension Tread

D 413 - Adhesion to flexible substrate Ply coat

Maximum: D 429 - Adhesion to rigid substrate Wire coat

Traction Adhesion Cord Plies D 430 - Dynamic fatigue a

Adhesi Adhesion coat

sion ply

Thermal Thermal liner

Oxidative Oxidative

Stability Stability D 518 - Surface cracking Sidewall

D 572 - Deterioration by heat and oxygen Sidewall

Cleanability D 623 - Heat generation and flexing fatigue

in compression All

Minimum: D 624 - Tear resistance Tread

D 1054 - Resilience by rebound pendulum Tread, wire

Rolling Weather Heat ee coat, ply

Buildup Permeability pone

D 1149 - Surface ozone i Sidewall

Wear Flex Cracking Flex Cracking D 1415 - International } — All

434 - : —_

Cut Growth Heat Buildup Heat Buildup S oo , poet. nen en eam snl

D 1646 - Viscosity and vulcanization All

soared pet 29 D 2084 - Oscillating disk cure meter All

. D 2137 - Brittleness point of flexible polymers Ply coat,

liner

D 2138 - Adhesion to textile cord Ply coat

D 2228 - Abrasion resistance Tread

D 2229 - Adhesion to steel cord Wire coat

D 2231 - Forced vibration Tread, wire

coat, ply

coat

D 2240 - Durometer hardness All

D 3395 - Dynamic ozone cracking Sidewall

D 3985 - Oxygen gas transmission rate Liner