Michelin’s Evidence Should Have Been Barred

LOS ANGELES (CN) - Accusations of bigamy should not have been introduced during a rollover case for a blown tire, the California Courts of Appeal ruled.

The trial court allowed tire manufacturer Michelin North America to introduce evidence that the plaintiff, Winfred D., had cheated on his wife with his business partners' wife, and married her without divorcing the first wife.

In addition, Michelin discussed the fact that Winfred later had two children with a third woman. The jury found in Michelin's favor.

On appeal, Judge Mallano ruled that none of this should have been discussed at the trial.

"The trial court's erroneous evidentiary rulings, which permitted Michelin to parade Winfred's illicit, intimate conduct before the jury - smearing his character and inflaming the jury - likely tainted the entire jury."

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit