SPRINGFIELD — A federal judge has denied a bid to end a negligence lawsuit stemming from a 2024 rollover crash in Florida, saying competing expert opinions over the cause of a tire failure create factual disputes that must be resolved by a jury rather than through summary judgment.
The court also partially granted and partially denied the plaintiffs’ request to strike portions of the defendant’s expert declaration.
The case was filed by Corey Spillman, Tammy Spillman and their two minor children, K.S. and M.S., against Sun Auto Tire & Service Inc., doing business as Plaza Tire Service, following a crash that occurred during a family road trip to Florida.
According to the court’s order, Corey Spillman purchased a 2004 Ford Explorer Sport Trac in 2022 and brought it to a Plaza Tire location in Springfield on April 4, 2024, requesting that two tires be replaced.
Plaza Tire installed two new tires on the vehicle’s front axle while leaving the two rear tires in place.
The service invoice reflected that both rear tires had tread depths measuring below 3/32 of an inch and recommended replacing them in the future.
Four days later, the Spillman family departed for Florida. After driving approximately 12 hours and spending the night in Pensacola, they resumed their trip on April 9.
While traveling eastbound on Interstate 10, the vehicle’s right rear tire failed, causing Corey Spillman to lose control.
The vehicle rolled over and came to rest near a tree line below the interstate.
According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the tire experienced tread separation that produced a near-instantaneous loss of inflation pressure.
Following the crash, Progressive Insurance took possession of the vehicle and the failed tire after acquiring title.
Although the insurer placed a preservation hold on the vehicle, it later sold it in July 2025 without notifying counsel for either side.
The vehicle and tire were subsequently destroyed before either party conducted a physical inspection, though extensive photographs had been taken beforehand.
The court noted that Progressive is not a party to the lawsuit.
The remaining claim in the case alleges negligence against Sun Auto.
The plaintiffs contend Plaza Tire should have recognized that the right rear tire was defective and unsafe because of an alleged manufacturing defect and should have replaced that tire rather than installing new tires on the front axle.
The court noted that earlier claims against Ford Motor Company and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, while another defendant was voluntarily dismissed from the case.
Sun Auto argued that the destruction of the tire and vehicle prevented anyone from determining why the tire failed, making it impossible for the plaintiffs to establish proximate causation.
The company relied on the declaration of retained expert Tom Vadnais, a mechanical engineer and tire engineer, who stated that a complete physical examination of the tire would be necessary to determine the cause of the failure and that such an examination could no longer occur because the tire had been destroyed.
The plaintiffs sought to strike Vadnais’ declaration, arguing it lacked foundation and failed to satisfy federal evidentiary requirements.
U.S. District Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark concluded that most of the declaration was admissible for purposes of summary judgment because Vadnais’ qualifications and role as a retained expert supported his opinions.
However, the judge found that one paragraph stating that the failed tire still had usable life with tread depths exceeding 2/32 of an inch lacked any supporting foundation or cited source.
The court ruled that the paragraph would be disregarded when deciding the summary judgment motion but declined to strike the remainder of the declaration.
In opposing summary judgment, the plaintiffs presented testimony from automotive engineer Richard Sherman, who specializes in tire design and failure analysis.
Sherman stated that he reviewed more than 375 photographs of the vehicle and tire and concluded that photographs could provide sufficient information to determine the cause of a tire failure even without a physical inspection.
According to the order, Sherman opined that the tire exhibited visible indications of a manufacturing defect that compromised its structural integrity and increased the likelihood of catastrophic failure.
He further concluded that Plaza Tire should have noticed the tire’s hazardous condition and, at a minimum, recommended replacement. Sherman ultimately stated that had Plaza Tire replaced the tire, the crash would not have occurred.
Sun Auto argued Sherman’s opinions were internally inconsistent because he acknowledged he could not determine whether the tire ultimately failed because of a manufacturing defect or a road hazard while also concluding the crash would have been prevented had the tire been replaced.
Ketchmark rejected that argument, writing that the opinions were not inherently inconsistent because Sherman maintained that the failure to replace the tire contributed to the crash regardless of whether the immediate triggering event was a manufacturing defect or a road hazard.
The court noted that under Missouri law, a defendant’s alleged negligence need only be a cause or contributing cause of an injury rather than its exclusive cause.
The judge acknowledged she was “hardly persuaded” by portions of Sherman’s causation opinion but concluded that, at the summary judgment stage, the court could not weigh competing expert testimony or make credibility determinations.
Instead, the conflicting opinions from the parties’ experts created a genuine dispute of material fact concerning causation that must be resolved by a factfinder.
As a result, the court denied Sun Auto’s motion for summary judgment.
In addition to denying summary judgment and partially granting the motion to strike, the court extended the deadline for expert discovery to Sept. 25.
Ketchmark also granted an unopposed motion to continue the trial date, stating that a revised scheduling order establishing new trial-related deadlines would be issued.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case number, Southern Division case number: 6:24-cv-03221
