# Amicus Curiae Brief — Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0174%3A19

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1999
- **Citation:** 526 U.S. 137

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0174%3A19. Public record. Not legal advice.