Intervenors' Original Petition

Filed
1/19/2023 3:31 AM
Anne Lorentzen
District Clerk
Nueces County, Texas
CAUSE NO. 2022CCV-61611-4
CRYSTAL CARDIEL, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW

AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF §
THE ESTATES OF G.G. AND CAL.C., §
DECEASED MINORS, AND AS NEXT §
FRIEND OF A.G., CAR.C. AND M.C.,§
MINORS, AND BRENDA MUNGIA §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER §
COMPANY AND §
FRANCISCO BECERRIL D/B/A §
STAPLES TIRES AND AUTOMOTIVE, §
Defendant § AT LAW NO. 4
§
ELIZABETH BERNAL, INDIVIDUALLY, §
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE §
ESTATE OF ANGEL MICHELLE §
FUENTES, DECEASED §
AND DEVIN LEIJA, INDIVIDUALLY §
Intervenors §
§
v. §
§
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER §
COMPANY AND §
FRANCISCO BECERRIL D/B/A §
STAPLES TIRES AND AUTOMOTIVE, §
Cross-Defendant. § NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
INTERVENORS, ELIZABETH BERNAL AND DEVIN LEIJA’S

ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COME, ELIZABETH BERNAL, INDIVIDUALLY and AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL MICHELLE FUENTES, DECEASED
and DEVIN LEIJA, INDIVIDUALLY (“Intervenors”), and file this Intervenors’ Original
Petition complaining of THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and
FRANCISCO BECERRIL D/B/A STAPLES TIRE AND AUTOMOTIVE (collectively
“Defendants”).
Intervenors’ Original Petition Page 1

I.
DISCOVERY LEVEL
1.1 Intervenors intend to conduct discovery under Level 3 pursuant to a court
order (in accordance with T.R.C.P. Rule 190.4).
II.
PARTIES
2.1 Intervenor, ELIZABETH BERNAL is the surviving biological mother of
ANGEL MICHELLE FUENTES and brings suit individually and as Representative of the
Estate of ANGEL MICHELLE FUENTES, for the wrongful death of her daughter, for her
injuries and her damages sustained as a result of the incident that serves as the basis for
this lawsuit. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Intervenor ELIZABETH BERNAL was
a resident of Nueces County, Texas.
2.2 Intervenor, DEVIN LEIJA is the surviving biological son of ANGEL
MIHELLE FUENTES, Deceased and brings suit individually for the wrongful death of
his mother, for his injuries and his damages sustained as a result of the incident that
serves as the basis for this lawsuit. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Intervenor DEVIN
LEIJA was a resident of Nueces County, Texas.
2.3 Plaintiffs, CRYSTAL CARDIEL AND BRENDA MUNGIA can be served
through their attorneys of record, David E. Harris, Sico Hoelscher Harris L.L.P., 802 N.
Carancahua, Suite 900, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 and Bennett A. Midlo, Sico Hoelscher
Harris L.L.P., 3 Riverway, Suite 1910, Houston, Texas 77056.
2.4 Defendant THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (“Goodyear”)
is a foreign company that is authorized to do business in Texas. Goodyear can be served
by serving its registered agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company
d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620,
Austin, Texas 78701-3218. Intervenors request that citation of service and process be
issued to The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company at this time.

2.5 Defendant Goodyear is responsible for designing, manufacturing, and
marketing of the tire in question. At all times material hereto, Goodyear was in the
business of designing, manufacturing and marketing automobile tires, and did design,
manufacture and market the tire in question. Goodyear is thus the “manufacturer” of the
tire within the meaning of § 82.001(4) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. At
some point after its manufacture, Goodyear released the subject tire into commerce. By
such action, Goodyear became liable under the doctrine of strict liability in tort for any
defects in the tire arising out of the design, manufacture or marketing of the tire.
2.6 Defendant FRANCISCO BECERRIL D/B/A STAPLES TIRE AND
AUTOMOTIVE (“Staples”) is a sole proprietorship doing business in the State of Texas
with a principal place of business located at 3501 S. Staples Street, Corpus Christi, Nueces
County, Texas 78411. Francisco Becerril’s residence address is 13850 Flintrock Drive,
Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas 78418. Defendant Francisco Becerril d/b/a
Staples Tire and Automotive may be served at either of the foregoing addresses, or
wherever he may be found. Intervenors request that citation of service and process be
issued to Staples Tire and Automotive at this time.
2.7 Intervenors expressly invoke the right under Rule 28 of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure to have the true name(s) of the parties substituted at a later time upon
the motion of any party or of this Court.
III.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
3.1 Venue in this case is proper in Nueces County, Texas, under Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code §15.002(a)(1) as it is the county where a substantial portion
of the acts and omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred. Specifically,
Defendant Staples and its employees, servants and agents committed acts and omissions
of negligence in Nueces County, Texas. Venue in this case is further proper in Nueces

County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002(a)(2) as it is the
county where Staples maintains its principal places of business. In that regard, venue in
this case is further proper as to Defendant Goodyear under Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code § 15.005.
3.2 The court has jurisdiction in this cause since the damages to Intervenors
exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
3.3 Goodyear manufactured the defective Goodyear Wrangler tire, size
P265/70R15, bearing DOT# PJC2 JU1R 3514 (the “Subject Tire”), at issue in this cause of
action.
3.4 Goodyear designed the Subject Tire.
3.5 Goodyear placed the Subject Tire in the stream of commerce.
3.6 The Subject Tire was intended to and did end up in Texas.
3.7 Goodyear places tires into the stream of commerce.
3.8 Goodyear knows its tires will reach Texas.
3.9 Goodyear served the Texas tire market.
3.10 Goodyear conducts business in Texas.
3.11 Goodyear has employees who live in Texas.
3.12 Goodyear owns property in Texas.
3.13 Goodyear pays taxes in Texas.
3.14 Goodyear has authorized tire dealers located in Texas.
3.15 Goodyear has authorized tire dealers located in Texas to sell Goodyear tires
to Texas customers.
3.16 Goodyear has authorized tire distributors located in Texas.
3.17 Goodyear authorized tire distributors located in Texas to sell Goodyear
tires to Texas customers.
3.18 Goodyear advertises its tires in Texas.

3.19 Goodyear advertised in Texas from 2014 through 2022, and to the present.
3.20 Goodyear markets its tires in Texas through authorized tire distributors.
3.21 Goodyear markets its tires in Texas through authorized tire dealers.
3.22 Goodyear marketed its tires in Texas through authorized tire dealers from
2014 through 2022, and to the present.
3.23 Goodyear marketed its tires in Texas through authorized tire distributors
from 2014 through 2022, and to the present.
3.24 Goodyear provides warranties for its tires in Texas.
3.25 Goodyear provided warranties for its tires in Texas from 2014 through 2022,
and to the present.
3.26 Goodyear provided warranties for its Goodyear Wrangler, size P265/70R16
tires in Texas.
3.27 Goodyear provided warranties for its Goodyear Wrangler, size P265/70R16
tires in Texas from 2014 through 2022, and to the present.
3.28 Goodyear sells its Goodyear Wrangler, size P265/70R16 tires in Texas.
3.29 Goodyear sold its Goodyear Wrangler, size P265/70R16 tires in Texas from
3.30 Goodyear delivered its Goodyear Wrangler, size P265/70R16, tires to its
authorized tire distributors in Texas.
authorized tire dealers in Texas.
authorized tire distributors in Texas from 2014 through 2022, and to the present.
authorized tire dealers in Texas from 2014 through 2022, and to the present.
3.34 Goodyear sells Goodyear Wrangler, size P265/70R16, tires in Texas.

3.35 Goodyear sold Goodyear Wrangler, size P265/70R16, tires in Texas from
3.36 Goodyear sold the Subject Tire in the State of Texas.
3.37 Goodyear sold the Subject Tire that suffered a catastrophic tread-belt
separation in the State of Texas.
3.38 Goodyear sold the Subject Tire in the State of Texas, and said tire was
purchased in the State of Texas.
3.39 Goodyear sold the defective Subject Tire that suffered the catastrophic
tread-belt separation in the State of Texas, and said tire was purchased in the State of
Texas.
3.40 Goodyear marketed, intended to sell, and sold the defective Subject Tire in
the State of Texas, and said tire was purchased in the State of Texas.
3.41 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has invoked the
jurisdiction of Texas courts.
3.42 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has invoked the
jurisdiction of federal court in Texas.
3.43 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present. Has filed suit in
Texas courts.
3.44 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has removed suits to
federal court in Texas.
3.45 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has filed court papers
asserting that federal courts in Texas have jurisdiction over cases in which Goodyear was
a party.
3.46 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has moved to
transfer suits in courts in Texas.
3.47 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has filed papers

asserting that transferee courts in Texas had jurisdiction over cases in which Goodyear
was a party.
3.48 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has filed petitions or
appeals seeking review or relief from Texas appellate courts.
3.49 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has filed court papers
asserting that Texas appellate courts had jurisdiction over cases in which Goodyear was
a party.
3.50 Goodyear from 2014 through 2022, and to the present, has answered
lawsuits filed in Texas courts without contesting personal jurisdiction.
3.51 Goodyear is currently involved in litigation other than this case pending in
Texas courts.
3.52 Goodyear is currently in litigation in Texas answering claims asserting the
failure of Goodyear products in Texas where Goodyear has not raised any challenge to
the Texas court’s personal jurisdiction over Goodyear in that pending litigation.
3.53 Goodyear has appeared in court in Texas to answer claims asserting the
failure of Goodyear products in Texas without raising any challenge to Texas’ personal
jurisdiction over Goodyear.
3.54 Goodyear gathered data in Texas to monitor its tires’ performance in the
State of Texas.
3.55 Goodyear is registered to do business in Texas and has a registered agent
for service of legal process in Texas.
3.56 Goodyear holds trademarks that it enforces in Texas.
3.57 Goodyear has contractual agreements with Texas companies to use
Goodyear trademarks in Texas.
3.58 Goodyear offers services to help dealers located in Texas.

3.59 Goodyear helps dealers located in Texas develop their own public internet
websites.
3.60 Goodyear allows its Texas dealers to subscribe to content about Goodyear
for products for us in their websites.
3.61 Goodyear has disseminated safety recall information through its dealers
located in Texas.
3.62 Goodyear owns the website www.Goodyear.com.
3.63 Goodyear has ultimate control and authority of its website mentioned
above in paragraph 3.62.
3.64 Goodyear’s website mentioned in paragraph 3.62 is accessible in Texas.
3.65 Goodyear has disseminated safety recall information through its website
mentioned in paragraph 3.62 in Texas.
3.66 Goodyear sends notice to Texas consumers who have registered their tires
outside of Goodyear’s website.
3.67 Goodyear’s website mentioned in paragraph 3.62 has a link describing tires
subject to recall.
3.68 Goodyear’s website mentioned in paragraph 3.62 has a link through which
Texas consumers may locate and replace Goodyear tires.
Texas consumers may locate an authorized Goodyear tire dealer.
3.70 Goodyear has issued technical service bulletins to it Texas dealers.
3.71 Goodyear has issued technical service bulletins to its Texas dealers on a
variety of subjects.
3.72 Goodyear’s website mentioned in paragraph 3.62, which is accessible in
Texas, has information through which Texas consumers can learn about Texas tire dealers
that sell Goodyear tires.

3.73 Goodyear has disseminated safety recall information through its dealers
located in Texas.
3.74 Goodyear has executives who live in Texas.
3.75 Goodyear builds its business plan around selling tires in Texas.
3.76 Goodyears sends notice to Texas consumers who have registered their
Goodyear and Goodyear Wrangler tires.
Texas consumers may locate and purchase Goodyear and Goodyear Wrangler tires.
Texas consumers may locate Texas-based vehicle dealers that distribute and sell
Goodyear and Goodyear Wrangler tires.
3.79 Goodyear has issued technical service bulletins to its Texas dealers.
3.80 Goodyear has issued technical service bulletins to its Texas dealers on a
variety of subjects including, but not limited to, technical service bulletins for Goodyear
and Goodyear Wrangler tires.
3.81 Goodyear’s website mentioned in paragraph 3.62, which is accessible in
Texas, has information through which Texas consumers can learn about Texas tire dealers
that sell Goodyear and Goodyear Wrangler tires.
3.82 In the Owner’s Manual for Goodyear Wrangler tires, Goodyear directs all
owners located in the United States to report defects to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
3.83 Goodyear owns the copyright on the Owner’s Manual for the Goodyear
Wrangler line of tires.
3.84 Goodyear published the Owner’s Manual for the Goodyear Wrangler tires.
3.85 Goodyear knows, intends, and expects a substantial number of its
Goodyear Wrangler tires to be used on highways and roadways in the United States.

3.86 Goodyear knows, intends, and expects a substantial number of its
Goodyear Wrangler tires to be used on highways and roadways in Texas.
3.87 The Subject Tire was purchased new in Texas.
3.88 The GMC Yukon L involved in the subject incident and on which the
Subject Tire was placed has only been owned by people who reside in Texas.
3.89 Based on paragraphs 3.1 through 3.88, this Court has personal jurisdiction
over Goodyear because it is authorized to and does conduct business in the State of Texas
and has sufficient contact with the State of Texas, both generally and with regard to this
specific action, that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it is proper.
3.90 Specific personal jurisdiction is proper over Goodyear (under the stream of
commerce plus theory) because Goodyear placed the Subject Tire in the stream of
commerce and Goodyear specifically serves the Texas market as a marketplace for its
goods.1
3.91 Even if this Court did not have specific personal jurisdiction over this
matter, general jurisdiction is proper over Goodyear because Goodyear’s contacts with
Texas, as described above in paragraphs 3.1 through 3.88, are so voluminous, continuous,
and systematic that Goodyear is essentially at home in Texas.2
1
Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868, 873 (Tex. 2010); see also Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
131S.Ct. 2846 (2011)(“Flow of a manufacturer’s products into the forum may bolster an affiliation germane to specific
jurisdiction); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014) (“International Shoe’s momentous departure from
Pennoyer’s rigidly territorial focus, we have noted, unleased a raped expansion of tribunals’ ability to hear claims
against out-of-state defendants when … the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum.”). World Wide
Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980)(“Hence if the sale of a product of a manufacturer or
distributor … is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to
serve directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one
of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has been the source of injury to its owner or to others.”) Asahi
Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)
(opinion of O’Connor, J.)(“specific jurisdiction may lie over a foreign defendant that places a product into the “stream
of commerce’ while also ‘…advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to
customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent
in the forum State’”).
2
See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851-52, 180 L.Ed.2d 796
(U.S. 2011); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d624 (2014).

IV.
FACTS
4.1 On or about August 16, 2022, Crystal Cardiel was the driver of a 2003 GMC
Yukon XL, bearing VIN# 1GKEC16ZX3J186030 (the “Yukon”), traveling with her five
minor children, her half-sister Brenda Mungia, and Brenda’s friend, Angel Fuentes, in the
seating positions in the Yukon shown in this seating chart:
Crystal Cardiel (32 yo) Angel Michelle Fuentes,

Deceased (45 yo)
Car.C., Minor (10 yo) G.G., Minor Deceased (13 Brenda Mungia (44 yo)
yo)
M.C., Minor (8 yo) A.G., Minor (14 yo) Cal.C., Minor Deceased (7
yo)
While traveling northbound on Interstate 37 in Live Oak County, Texas, the vehicle
suffered a catastrophic tread belt separation of the left rear Goodyear Wrangler tire, size
P265/70R16, bearing DOT# PJC2 JU1R 3514 (the “Subject Tire”) causing the vehicle to
depart the roadway to the left and roll over. As a result of the incident, Angel Michelle
Fuentes, suffered fatal injuries, and damages and injuries to Elizabeth Bernal and Devin
Leija.
4.2 On August 11, 2022, just five days before the fatal incident, Crystal Cardiel
took the Yukon for a state vehicle and tire inspection at Defendant Staples’ location at
3501 S. Staples Street, Corpus Christi, Texas. At the time of this inspection by Staples
employee Guadalupe Chapa, in the course and scope of his/her employment, the four
tires on the Yukon were as follows:
RIGHT FRONT: Hankook Dynapro tire, size P265/70R16, bearing DOT#

T79M HU H 4618, indicating that the tire was manufactured
during the 46th week of 2018;
LEFT FRONT: Hankook Dynapro tire, size P265/70R16, bearing DOT#


RIGHT REAR: Goodyear Wrangler tire, size P265/70R16, bearing DOT#
4BC2 KA1R 2618, indicating that the tire was manufactured
LEFT REAR: Goodyear Wrangler tire, size P265/70R16, bearing DOT#

PJC2 JU1R 3514, indicating that the tire was manufactured
during the 35th week of 2014 (“the Subject Tire”).
Therefore, when the tires on Crystal Cardiel’s Yukon were inspected by Defendant
Staples, the Subject Tire was very nearly eight (8) years old and therefore aged past its
useful service life. Moreover, the Subject Tire was located on the left rear wheel position
on the vehicle, when markedly newer tires manufactured in 2016 and 2018 were on the
front wheel positions of the Yukon, a demonstrably unsafe configuration.
4.3 On August 11, 2022, Defendant Staples, including its employees, failed to
properly advise Crystal Cardiel that the Subject Tire on the Yukon was very nearly eight
(8) years old and in need of replacement. This failure was a proximate cause of the
incident.
properly advise Crystal Cardiel that newer tires were positioned on the front axle of the
Yukon and that the older Subject Tire was positioned on the rear axle of the Yukon, an
unsafe configuration – newer tires should always be placed on the rear axle of a vehicle.
This failure was a proximate cause of the incident.
4.5 The Subject Tire was originally designed, manufactured, and marketed by
Defendant Goodyear. The Department of Transportation code on the Subject Tire reflects
that the tire was manufactured during the 35th week of 2014 at Goodyear’s Fayetteville,
North Carolina manufacturing facility. The Subject Tire was designed, manufactured,
and marketed in the United States, specifically in Texas. Goodyear failed to use
reasonable care in the design, manufacture and/or marketing of the Subject Tire.
4.6 For all of the reasons set forth herein, Intervenors will show that Defendants
are responsible and liable for the injuries and damages Intervenors suffered, the wrongful

death Angel Michelle Fuentes, Deceased. Such acts and/or omissions were a direct,
producing and/or proximate cause of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit,
Intervenors’ resulting injuries and damages, and the wrongful death of Angel Michelle
Fuentes.
V.
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT GOODYEAR
A. Strict Product Liability: Design, Manufacturing and Warning Defects
5.1 Intervenors re-allege and incorporate the paragraphs above.
5.2 Intervenors will show that Defendant Goodyear designed, manufactured,
assembled, and marketed the Subject Tire in such a manner that renders the Subject Tire
defective and unreasonable dangerous. Specifically, the Subject Tire is unreasonably
dangerous because of its design that lack sufficient safety margins, its manufacture that
lacks sufficient safety margins, its propensity to separate (detread/delaminate), its poor
adhesion, its tendency to fail (and fail in a catastrophic manner), its lack of warnings
and/or lack of adequate warnings and/or instructions for safe use about tire age (and
other items) and such other defects as are supported by the evidence. The Subject Tire
suffers from design and manufacturing defects such as lack of a nylon cap ply, oxidation,
steel belt anomalies, and/or lack of proper adhesion between components. Moreover,
and despite these defects (which were well known to Goodyear), Goodyear failed to
timely and/or adequately warn owners of the Subject Tire, failed to provide any post-
sale warnings, failed to initiate a safety recall, and such other failures that resulted in the
injurious incident made the basis of the suit. Goodyear further failed to issue (and/or
failed to issue adequate) time-based warnings not to use the Subject Tire once it was no
longer fit for use and service. Goodyear failed to warn and/or adequately warn
consumers in North America and Texas not to use the tire once it reached an age when it
was no longer fit for use and service. All of the defects (design, manufacturing and/or

marketing defects) render the Subject Tire unreasonably dangerous and defective, and
such defects were a producing cause of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit,
Intervenors’ resulting injuries and damages and the wrongful death of Angel Michelle
Fuentes.
5.3 The Subject Tire was originally designed, manufactured, sold and/or
placed into the stream of commerce by Goodyear. At the time of the sale of the Subject
Tire, Goodyear was in the business of designing, manufacturing, and sell automotive tires
such as the Subject Tire. At the time the Subject Tire was designed, manufactured, sold,
and/or placed into the stream of commerce by Goodyear, the Subject Tire was defective
and unreasonably dangerous in its design, marketing, and manufacture. Specifically, the
tire contains design, manufacturing, and marketing defects. Once such design defect is
the lack of a nylon cap ply, a tire component known to Goodyear to reduce the likelihood
of a catastrophic tread-belt separation in a tire during its normal use. The Subject Tire
further demonstrates evidence of the lack of adhesion between the tire’s steel belts, a
manufacturing defect. Other manufacturing defects in the Subject Tire include steel belt
anomalies. The tire also suffers from oxidation and improper bonding of the materials
resulting from design and/or manufacturing defects. These defects resulted in the
subject tread/belt separation, the incident, Intervenors’ resulting injuries and damages
and the wrongful death of Angel Michelle Fuentes. The Subject Tire failed as a result of
a complete separation of the tread and upper steel belt structure of the tire from its
carcass.
5.4 The described separation resulted from manufacturing and design defects,
including areas in which the tire materials did not have the necessary bond strength to
withstand normal use. The Subject Tire contained an inadequate inner liner, poor belt
construction, inadequate aging resistance, and improper antidegradants, one or all of

which permitted premature deterioration of the tire’s internal structure. Goodyear
further failed to warn consumers regarding the hazards associated with the tire aging,
including that tire aging is a known factor for tire rubber degradation, fatigue, and
failure, including tread-belt separations. These defects and unreasonably dangerous
conditions were a producing cause of the incident made the basis of this suit (i.e., tread-
belt separation and resulting loss of vehicle control), Intervenors’ resulting injuries and
damages and the wrongful death of Angel Michelle Fuentes.
5.5 Aside from normal wear and tear, the Subject Tire was in the same defective
condition at the time of the incident as it was when it left the hands of Goodyear. The
Subject Tire was expected to and in fact reached the user or consumer without substantial
change in the condition in which it was sold. Technologically and economically feasible
safer alternative designs existed that would have prevented or significantly reduced the
risk of injury without substantially impairing the utility of the product, including proper
spacing of belt wires, proper belt splices, regular belt spacing, adequate aging resistance,
proper antidegradants that prevent premature deterioration of the internal structure, and
proper curing to obtain adequate bonding of the tire’s materials. The tire also exhibited
manufacturing defects which allow for increases stress and strain and higher heat
between wires due to the proximity of the wire cables to each other, a known factor in
causing or contributing to cause tread-belt separation in tires. The Subject Tire was also
defective in that it exhibits steel belt rubber that was incapable of resisting degradation
from heat, oxygen, stress, and strain within the tire, as evidenced by the oxidative
degradation of the rubber noted on the tire. The above outlined defects were a direct
producing and proximate cause of the tire failure and of the incident made the basis of
this lawsuit, Intervenors’ resulting injuries and damages and the wrongful death of Angel
Michelle Fuentes.

B. Negligence
5.6 Intervenors will further show that Goodyear was negligent (by its acts
and/or omissions), and that such negligence on the part of Goodyear was a cause, and a
proximate cause, of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit. Goodyear was negligent
by its failure to include certain safety components within the tire’s construction, its failure
to make a more robust tire, and by other failures that were acts and/or omissions rising
to the level of negligence. As such, Goodyear’s negligent acts and/or omissions were a
proximate cause of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, Intervenors’ resulting
Injuries and damages and the wrongful death of Angel Michelle Fuentes.
a. Negligently designing the tire from the standpoints of aging resistance and
mitigation of the known propensity of belt edge separation;
b. Failing to adequately train and assist dealers in the dangers associated with
the tire;
c. Failing to disclose known problems and defects concerning the defective

design of tire;
d. Negligently marketing the tire as a safe passenger tire;
e. Failing to comply with the standards of care applicable in the automotive

and tire industry in accordance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards;
f. Failing to comply with applicable and necessary Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards;
g. Failing to notify consumers as required by law that a defect exists in the tire
that relates to public safety;
h. Failing to recall the tire;
i. Failing to design the tire in question to prevent failure by tread/belt

separation;
j. Placing the product on the market without adequate warnings about the
dangers of the product;
k. Failing to adequately test the product to discover the dangerous nature of

the product;

l. Failing to take action to investigate and correct problems with the product
after learning if its risk to cause serious bodily injuries;
m. Failing to issue adequate time-based warnings to consumers in possession

of its tires;
n. Failing to adequately advise consumers on when to replace tires based

upon their age;
o. Failing to issue adequate time-based warnings to consumers in possession

of its tires regarding service life for passenger and light truck tires; and
p. Failing to adequately advise consumers on when to replace tires based

upon their age, which Goodyear knew or should have known would have
prevented the severe injuries and damages sustained by Intervenors.
5.7 This incident only recently occurred, and this incident is still in its early
stages of investigation. Intervenors reserve the right to modify, supplement, amend, and
change these pleadings to conform to the evidence as information continued to be
gathered.
C. Inadequate Standards
5.8 Applicable safety standards issued by the federal government or any other
agency or group, if any, were inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risks of
injury or damage, and Goodyear has withheld or misrepresented information and
material relevant to the federal government or agency’s determination of adequacy of the
safety standards or regulations at issue in this action.
VI.
NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING & RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
AGAINST DEFENDANT STAPLES TIRE AND AUTOMOTIVE
6.1 Defendant Staples, including its employees, committed acts of omission
and commission, which collectively and severally constituted negligence and a negligent
misrepresentation, which were a proximate cause of the occurrence in question,
Intervenors’ injuries and damages and the wrongful death Angel Michelle Fuentes.
6.2 Intervenors specifically plead the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendant Staples is responsible for the

negligent actions of its employees, including but not limited to Guadalupe Chapa,
committed during the course and scope of their employment for Defendant.
6.3 On August 11, 2022, Crystal Cardiel took her 2003 GMC Yukon XL for a
state vehicle and tire inspection at Defendant Staples’ store located at 3501 S. Staples
Street in Corpus Christi Texas. At the time of this inspection, the four tires on the Yukon
were as follows:
RIGHT FRONT: Hankook Dynapro tire, size P265/70R16, bearing DOT#

LEFT FRONT: Hankook Dynapro tire, size P265/70R16, bearing DOT#
RIGHT REAR: Goodyear Wrangler tire, size P265/70R16, bearing DOT#

4BC2 KA1R 2618, indicating that the tire was manufactured
LEFT REAR: Goodyear Wrangler tire, size P265/70R16, bearing DOT#

PJC2 JU1R 3514, indicating that the tire was manufactured
during the 35th week of 2014 (“the Subject Tire”).
Therefore, when the tires on Crystal Cardiel’s Yukon were inspected by Defendant
Staples, the Subject Tire was very nearly eight (8) years old and therefore aged past its
useful service life. Also, the Subject Tire was located in the left rear wheel position on the
vehicle, when markedly newer tires manufactured in 2016 and 2018 were on the front
wheel positions of the Yukon, a demonstrably unsafe configuration.
6.4 On August 11, 2022, a mere five days following Defendant Staples’ vehicle
and tire inspection of the Yukon, Crystal Cardiel was driving the vehicle when the Subject
Tire suffered a catastrophic tread belt separation. Crystal Cardiel was unable to maintain
control of the Yukon, which left the roadway and rolled over. As a result of the incident,
Angel Michelle Fuentes suffered fatal injuries and Elizabeth Bernal and Devin Leija
suffered damages and injuries.
properly advise Crystal Cardiel that the Subject Tire on the Yukon was very nearly eight
(8) years old and in need of replacement. This failure was a proximate cause of the
incident.
properly advise Crystal Cardiel that newer tires manufactured in 2016 and 2018 were
positioned on the front axle of the Yukon and that the 2014 Subject Tire and a 2018 tire
were positioned on the rear axle of the Yukon, an unsafe configuration – newer tires
should always be placed on the rear axle of a vehicle. This failure was a proximate cause
of the incident.
6.7 Defendant Staples was negligent in failing to educate itself and become
knowledgeable on tire industry standards and vehicle manufacturer recommendations
regarding tire aging and tire placement. Had Defendant properly and adequately
investigated and become knowledgeable regarding such standards and
recommendations, Defendant would have known that a tire at a minimum of six (6) years
and a maximum of 10 years beyond its date of manufacture should be taken out of service
based on its age alone, regardless of the visible conditions of the tire, including its
remaining tread depth. Further, had Defendant investigated and become knowledgeable
regarding industry standards and recommendations, Defendant would have known that
the safest configuration for tires is always to have the newest tires placed on the rear axle
of the vehicle, for dry road handling purposes, and to mitigate hydroplaning on wet
roads.
6.8 Defendant Staples failed to properly train its employees with respect to
tires, inspecting tires, decoding the DOT numbers on tires, servicing tires, tire conditions,
tire conditions that necessitate the need for replacement, tire conditions that necessitate
the need for recommendation of replacement, tire aging, and tire placement. Further,
Defendant failed to properly create and implement adequate policies and procedures in
its stores regarding these matters.

6.9 On August 11, 2022, Defendant Staples and its employees negligently
undertook to provide a safety inspection of Crystal Cardiel’s 2003 GMC Yukon XL and
its tires, including the Subject Tire, and failed to notice that the Subject Tire was too old
to remain in service and was improperly placed on the rear axle of the vehicle when
newer tires were placed on the front axle. Defendant failed to properly advise and
recommend to Crystal Cardiel that the Subject Tire be taken out of service based on its
age alone. Defendant further failed to properly advise and recommend to Crystal Cardiel
that the newer 2016 front tire, or even more preferably, the 2018 front tire on the Yukon
be moved to the left rear position on the vehicle. By failing to make these safety
recommendations, Defendant Staples and its employees created the condition on the
vehicle at the time of the incident; namely, having a non-serviceable aged tire in the left
rear position of the vehicle. These failures were a proximate cause of the occurrence in
question, Intervenors’ injuries and damages and the wrongful death Angel Michelle
Fuentes.
VII.
DAMAGES
7.1 Intervenors will further show that Intervenors are entitled to all legally
compensable damages as permitted by Texas law. As a direct and proximate result of
the incident, injuries, and damages for which Defendants are liable, Intervenors seek and
are entitled to general, special, economic and noneconomic damages, as applicable to
Intervenors, in an amount in excess of the Court’s minimum jurisdictional limits, as the
jury determines to be just and fair. Such damages include, but are not necessarily limited
to:
a. Personal Injury Damages to Elizabeth Bernal:
1) Pecuniary loss in the past and future;

2) Loss of consortium, companionship and society in the past and
future;

3) Mental anguish in the past and future;
4) Loss of inheritance;
5) All other damages allowed by law and equity.
b. Personal Injury Damages to Devin Leija:

future;
4) Loss of inheritance;
c. Wrongful Death Damages to Elizabeth Bernal and Devin Leija:

future;
4) Loss of inheritance; and
d. Survival Damages of Angel Michelle Fuentes (by and through Personal

Representative Elizabeth Bernal):
1) Pain and mental anguish;

2) Funeral and burial expenses; and
7.2 The damages sought are greatly in excess of the minimum jurisdictional
limits of the Court, within the province of the jury and as required by Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure, Intervenors plead damages are over $1,000,000.00.
VIII.
RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND
8.1 These allegations against Defendants are made acknowledging that this
lawsuit is still in its early stages, and investigation and discovery, although undertaken,
are continuing. As further investigation and discovery are conducted, additional facts
will surely be uncovered that may and probably will necessitate further, additional,
and/or different allegations, including the potential of adding additional parties to the
case or dismissing parties from the case. The right to do so, under Texas law, is expressly
reserved.

IX.
PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
9.1 Intervenors would additionally say and show that they are entitled to
recovery of prejudgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with law and equity
as part of their damages herein, and Intervenors here and now sue for recovery of
prejudgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law and equity, under the
applicable provisions of the laws of the State of Texas.
X.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
10.1 Intervenors hereby demand a trial by jury and have tendered the
appropriate fee.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Intervenors pray that this cause be set for trial before a jury, that
they recover judgment of and from Defendant for actual damages, jointly and severally,
in such amount as the evidence may show and the jury may determine to be proper,
together with prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs of court, and such other
and further relief to which they may show themselves to be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
WIGINGTON RUMLEY DUNN

& BLAIR, L.L.P.
123 North Carrizo Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Tel: (361) 885-7500
Fax: (361) 885-0487
/s/ Jerry Guerra

Jerry Guerra
State Bar No. 00789326
jguerra@wigrum.com
David L. Rumley
State Bar No. 00791581
drumley@wigrum.com
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENORS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney does hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing instrument was served on all counsel of record as listed below which provides
for service on counsel of record in accordance with the electronic filing protocols in place,
by certified mail, by fax, and/or U.S. regular mail, and/or any other proper method of
service, on this the 19th day of January 2023.
David E. Harris Via Eservice: dharris@shhlaw.com

SICO HOELSCHER HARRIS L.L.P.
802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
and
Bennett A. Midlo Via Eservice: bmidlo@shhlaw.com

SICO HOELSCHER HARRIS L.L.P.
3 Riverway, Suite 1910
Houston, Texas 77056
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
/s/ Jerry Guerra

Jerry Guerra

Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Susan Winegeart on behalf of Jerry Guerra

Bar No. 789326
swinegeart@wigrum.com
Envelope ID: 71974949
Status as of 1/20/2023 1:50 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Elaine Brown ebrown@wigrum.com 1/20/2023 9:59:21 AM SENT
David Rumley drumley@wigrum.com 1/20/2023 9:59:21 AM SENT
David E.Harris dharris@swhhb.com 1/20/2023 9:59:21 AM SENT
Jerry Guerra jguerra@wigrum.com 1/20/2023 9:59:21 AM SENT
Susan Winegeart swinegeart@wigrum.com 1/20/2023 9:59:21 AM SENT
Bennett Midlo bmidlo@shhlaw.com 1/20/2023 9:59:21 AM SENT
Bennett Midlo bmidlo@shhlaw.com 1/20/2023 9:59:21 AM SENT

Intervenors' Original Petition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Intervenors' Original Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Filed

CAUSE NO. 2022CCV-61611-4

CRYSTAL CARDIEL, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW

INTERVENORS, ELIZABETH BERNAL AND DEVIN LEIJA’S

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COME, ELIZABETH BERNAL, INDIVIDUALLY and AS PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANGEL MICHELLE FUENTES, DECEASED

Petition complaining of THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and

FRANCISCO BECERRIL D/B/A STAPLES TIRE AND AUTOMOTIVE (collectively

Intervenors’ Original Petition Page 1

1.1 Intervenors intend to conduct discovery under Level 3 pursuant to a court

order (in accordance with T.R.C.P. Rule 190.4).

2.1 Intervenor, ELIZABETH BERNAL is the surviving biological mother of

a resident of Nueces County, Texas.

2.2 Intervenor, DEVIN LEIJA is the surviving biological son of ANGEL

LEIJA was a resident of Nueces County, Texas.

2.3 Plaintiffs, CRYSTAL CARDIEL AND BRENDA MUNGIA can be served

Harris L.L.P., 3 Riverway, Suite 1910, Houston, Texas 77056.

2.4 Defendant THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (“Goodyear”)

is a foreign company that is authorized to do business in Texas. Goodyear can be served

issued to The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company at this time.

Intervenors’ Original Petition Page 2

2.6 Defendant FRANCISCO BECERRIL D/B/A STAPLES TIRE AND

AUTOMOTIVE (“Staples”) is a sole proprietorship doing business in the State of Texas

issued to Staples Tire and Automotive at this time.

the motion of any party or of this Court.

Intervenors’ Original Petition Page 3

Remedies Code § 15.005.

exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.

3.3 Goodyear manufactured the defective Goodyear Wrangler tire, size

3.4 Goodyear designed the Subject Tire.

3.5 Goodyear placed the Subject Tire in the stream of commerce.

3.7 Goodyear places tires into the stream of commerce.

3.8 Goodyear knows its tires will reach Texas.

3.9 Goodyear served the Texas tire market.

3.10 Goodyear conducts business in Texas.

3.11 Goodyear has employees who live in Texas.

3.12 Goodyear owns property in Texas.

3.13 Goodyear pays taxes in Texas.

3.14 Goodyear has authorized tire dealers located in Texas.

3.16 Goodyear has authorized tire distributors located in Texas.

3.17 Goodyear authorized tire distributors located in Texas to sell Goodyear

tires to Texas customers.

3.18 Goodyear advertises its tires in Texas.

Intervenors’ Original Petition Page 4

2014 through 2022, and to the present.

from 2014 through 2022, and to the present.

3.24 Goodyear provides warranties for its tires in Texas.

and to the present.

tires in Texas from 2014 through 2022, and to the present.

2014 through 2022, and to the present.

authorized tire distributors in Texas.

authorized tire dealers in Texas.

3.34 Goodyear sells Goodyear Wrangler, size P265/70R16, tires in Texas.

Intervenors’ Original Petition Page 5

2014 through 2022, and to the present.

3.36 Goodyear sold the Subject Tire in the State of Texas.

separation in the State of Texas.

purchased in the State of Texas.

jurisdiction of Texas courts.

jurisdiction of federal court in Texas.

federal court in Texas.

transfer suits in courts in Texas.

Intervenors’ Original Petition Page 6

appeals seeking review or relief from Texas appellate courts.

lawsuits filed in Texas courts without contesting personal jurisdiction.