IN RE BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Stacey Shrader Joslin on Jul 10, 2015

Head Comment: CORRECTION: The last sentence of the summary paragraph at the beginning of the opinion is changed from: "Because we find that an exception to the application of collateral estoppel applies to these cases, we reverse." to "Because we conclude that an alternative exception to the application of collateral estoppel may apply, we reverse."

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Steve North, Nashville, Tennessee, Richard L. Denney, Norman, Oklahoma, and Frank Fraiser, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the appellants, Torres, Hernandez, Santin, and Guzman.

Attorneys 2:

A. Scott Ross, Nashville, Tennessee, Gregory G. Garre, and Katherine I. Twomey, Washington, DC, for the appellee, Bridgestone/Firestone.

Stephen A. Marcum, Huntsville, Tennessee, Gregory G. Garre, and Katherine I.

Judge(s): MCBRAYER

Appellants appeal the dismissal of their products liability cases. The trial court concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to a prior forum non conveniens dismissal. The trial court reasoned that, at the time of the prior forum non conveniens dismissal, Appellant should have foreseen that the foreign forum would be unavailable to them and that issue should have been raised in previous proceedings. Because we conclude that an alternative exception to the application of collateral estoppel may apply, we reverse.