Beasock v. Dioguardi Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1985 |
| Citation | 130 Misc.2d 25,494 N.Y.S.2d 974 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | Linda L. BEASOCK, as Administratrix of the Estate of Anthony J. Beasock, Deceased, and Linda L. Beasock, Individually, Plaintiff, v. DIOGUARDI ENTERPRISES, INC., Adam D. Dioguardi; Joseph M. Dioguardi; Mobil Oil Corporation; the General Tire & Rubber Company; Johnny Antonelli Tire Company, Inc., and Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendants. Linda L. BEASOCK, as Administratrix of the Estate of Anthony J. Beasock, Deceased, and Linda L. Beasock, Individually, Plaintiff, v. The RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; and the Tire & Rim Association, Incorporated, Defendants. |
Friedman and Michael, Rochester (Robert J. Michael, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Gough, Skipworth, Summers, Eves & Trevett, Rochester (Robert T. Skipworth, of counsel), for defendant, Tire & Rim Ass'n, Inc.
This motion for summary judgment brought by the defendant, Tire and Rim Association (TRA) presents a novel question as to what duty, if any, a manufacturers' trade association owes the general public for injuries caused by the product of a member manufacturer.
The plaintiff, Linda L. Beasock, brought this action against the TRA for the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of her husband, Anthony J. Beasock. Mr. Beasock was injured on November 29, 1977 while attempting to inflate a 16-inch truck tire mistakenly mounted on a 16.5-inch rim, using a service station air pump when the tire exploded. Mr. Beasock died on April 22, 1979 as a result of those injuries.
The 16-inch tire in question was manufactured by The General Tire and Rubber Company (General Tire) in 1975 and was later recapped by Johnny Antonelli Tire Company, Inc. in 1977. On the day the deceased was injured, his employer had manually mounted the tire on a 16.5-inch rim, manufactured by Kelsey-Hayes Company in 1977, and this uninflated tire-rim assembly was taken by the deceased to a gas station for inflation.
The complaint alleges that the design of the 16.5-inch rim is defective in that it permits the mounting of a 16-inch tire without difficulty and that when inflation of this mismatched combination is attempted, the tire bead will not seat against the rim flange but instead will break with explosive force. Although the diameter of a 16.5 inch rim immediately inside the flange is approximately one-half inch greater than the same portion of a 16-inch rim, the overall diameter of the 16.5 inch rim is in fact slightly smaller than the overall diameter of a 16-inch rim. Thus, the effort required to slip a 16 inch tire onto a 16.5 inch rim is equivalent to the effort required to slip it onto its corresponding 16 inch rim.
The complaint further alleges that the tire and rim were defective in that they did not contain warnings concerning the danger of explosion if a 16 inch tire was mounted on a 16.5 inch rim. Lastly, it is alleged that the size markings on the tire and rim were inadequate and confusing.
The plaintiff asserts three causes of action against the TRA; for strict products liability, for breach of warranty and for negligence. The plaintiff's claims against TRA, as alleged in the complaint and amplified in the bill of particulars, are that the defective design was approved, adopted, promulgated and perpetuated by TRA; that TRA continued to endorse and promulgate the design even after it knew that the mismatch was occurring and resulting in injuries; that the size designation of tires and rims was established by TRA; and that the few warnings issued by TRA were inadequate.
TRA is now moving for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against it for failure to state a cause of action and for lack of personal jurisdiction. This is the second motion brought before this court by TRA. Previously, in 1981, TRA moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. This motion was denied without prejudice in order to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery on the issue of jurisdiction.
TRA is an Ohio not-for-profit corporation located at Fairlawn, Ohio. It was founded in 1903 and incorporated in its present form in 1933. It has three employees, J.F. Pacuit, who is its executive vice president, and two staff members, a bookkeeper/secretary and a clerk/typist.
The primary function of TRA is to promote dimensional standards within the automotive industry for tires and rims to allow interchangeability among the various manufacturers' products. The 1933 Articles of Incorporation state that its purpose is to "promote the interests of the Automotive Industry as relating to tires, rims, wheels and their component parts; to establish sound engineering standards for the guidance of the tire, rim and wheel industries; to provide inspection for the maintenance of such standards among the members of the Association; and to do everything necessary, suitable and proper, including cooperation with all branches of the Automotive Industry, for the accomplishment of any of the aforesaid objects...." The association's purposes are also similarly set forth in its Constitution and Regulations.
All manufacturers of tires, rims and related components are eligible for TRA membership, and in 1980 its membership consisted of 43 domestic and 83 foreign manufacturers. Both General Tire and Kelsey-Hayes are members.
Since 1923 all TRA standards have been published annually in the TRA yearbook. The yearbook contains primarily dimensional standards for tires, rims and associated parts as well as recommended pressures and load ratings for tires. The dimensional standards include rim contours or cross sections of the rims which graphically display the shape of the rim in addition to its various dimensions.
TRA has some 12 to 15 committees and subcommittees, all of which are involved with the contents of the yearbook and the TRA Engineering Design Information (EDI). Both General Tire and Kelsey-Hayes, in addition to having representatives on the Board of Trustees of TRA, also have representatives on the Standards and Technical Advisory Committees, as well as the Passenger Car, Truck-Bus, Off-the-Road, Agricultural and Industrial, Tire and Rim Standards Subcommittees. The EDI, published by TRA since 1969, is a supplement to the yearbook and is revised quarterly. It contains standards for new tires and rims or so-called design guide status standards. Eventually, should the appropriate committees and subcommittees believe these proposed standards are acceptable, their status would change to a TRA standard and would be published in the yearbook.
TRA denies that it engaged in the design, sale, manufacture or distribution of tires and rims. According to TRA, it does not establish standards for the materials used in the manufacture of tires and rims; it does not mandate or monitor the use of its standards by any manufacturer; it does not inspect manufacturers' operations; it does not specify any service or maintenance procedures; it does not have the power or authority to prevent any manufacturer from designing, manufacturing or selling a rim or tire of any particular size or design; it does not undertake to develop or promulgate safety measures or otherwise warn the public or industry as to potential hazards resulting from a tire and rim mismatch; and it does not interface with the consuming public. TRA merely performs a service to the automobile industry, it claims, by publishing tire and rim standards to facilitate interchangeability of products within the industry, but such standards are advisory only and adherence to them and their use is entirely within the control and discretion of each manufacturer. The yearbook itself contains disclaimers which essentially incorporate the foregoing.
The plaintiff does not dispute TRA's factual allegations and, therefore, for the purposes of this motion, they will be accepted as true. Nevertheless, plaintiff argues, TRA as well as Kelsey-Hayes and General Tire have all conceded in examinations before trial that the standards promulgated by TRA have a significant influence upon dimensional standards within the tire and rim industry and that they have become the standards of industry. In addition, it appears that TRA was aware of the mismatch problem as early as 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Prods. Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.
...to the plaintiffs with respect to hardwood plywood paneling manufactured by one of its members"); Beasock v. Dioguardi Enters., Inc. , 130 Misc.2d 25, 31, 494 N.Y.S.2d 974 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985) (granting summary judgment in favor of tire trade association where "it [was] clear that it had ne......
-
Weigand v. University Hosp. of New York University Medical Center
...Hous. Auth., 69 N.Y.2d 225, 229, 513 N.Y.S.2d 356, 505 N.E.2d 922). The decisions relied on by defendant AABB (Beasock v. Dioguardi Enters., Inc., 130 Misc.2d 25, 494 N.Y.S.2d 974; Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc., 133 Misc.2d 50, 506 N.Y.S.2d 523; Meyers v. Donnatacci, 220 N.J.Super. 73, 531......
-
Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons
...322 A.2d 824, 825 (1974) (magazine publisher not liable for injury caused by advertised product); Beasock v. Dioguardi Enters., Inc., 130 Misc.2d 25, 30-31, 494 N.Y.S.2d 974, 979 (Sup.Ct.1985) (truck association not liable for injuries caused by products manufactured in adherence to industr......
-
In re Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation, 1:03-CV-17000.
...alone certainly does not impute negligence upon, or otherwise taint, a non-manufacturer. 114. See Beasock v. Dioguardi Enterprises, Inc., 130 Misc.2d 25, 494 N.Y.S.2d 974 (N.Y.Sup. Ct.1985), reversed on other grounds, 117 A.D.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 558 (granting summary judgment to tire and ......
-
How the Fifty States View Electronic Data as a “Product”
...provide entertainment and amusement, as well as those that provide instruction and advice”); Beasock v. Dioguardi Enterprises, Inc., 494 N.Y.S.2d 974, 29-30 (N.Y. Sup. 1985) (“publications themselves . . . cannot serve as the basis for the imposition of liability under a theory of either st......
-
Suing the Certifiers – A Dangerous Undertaking
...(applying South Carolina law), affirming, 1996 WL 498410, at *4-5 (D.S.C. March 8, 1996).Beasock v. Dioguardi Enterprises, Inc., 494 N.Y.S.2d 974, 978 (N.Y. Sup. 1985): The only products [the trade association] is responsible for placing in the stream of commerce are its publications. Altho......
-
Products Liability and Toxic Tort Cases
...to formulate or enforce safety standards but merely distributes publications related to the product. Beasock v. Dioguardi Enters., Inc., 130 Misc. 2d 25, 494 N.Y.S.2d 974 (1985). D. In certain cases, however, the trade association can owe a duty if it holds itself out as an expert in the fi......