Legal Opinion
Benedict v. Hankook Tire Co. Ltd.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided February 6, 2018No. Civil Action No. 3:17–cv–109PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Southwell's first theory, in essence, is that the subject tire's components were "not properly 'stuck together.' " Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. C 11. Tires generally contain several rubber components. See Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. C 11-13, 17-19. In a finished tire, these components adhere to each other through, at least as relevant here, interdiffusion and sulphur cross linking. See Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. C 11-13.
The first of these processes, interdiffusion, involves "the spontaneous movement of [rubber molecule] chains across the interface of two adjoining components." Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. C 12. This means that, when two…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Mark N. Silvestri v. General Motors Corporation, Dfendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2001
- Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. MendezTexas Supreme Court · 2006
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Blackjewel, L.L.C. v. United BankUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2022
- Tracey Carter, et al. v. Sentara Healthcare Fiduciary Committee, et al.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2026