Emmons v. Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC, Case No. 1:10CV41 JAR
| Decision Date | 12 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:10CV41 JAR |
| Parties | GARY EMMONS, et ux, Plaintiffs, v. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 153). This matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
On June 18, 2009, Plaintiff Gary Emmons ("Mr. Emmons") was involved in a workplace accident involving a multi-piece rim and assembly installed on a log-hauling truck used at Emmons Sawmill in Fairdealing, Missouri. The rim consists of three metal parts (a rim base, lock ring, and flange). As Mr. Emmons was servicing the multi-piece rim, a pressurized separation of the rim components occurred and he was injured.
Goodyear developed the M-style multi-piece rim in the 1940s, but never obtained any patents on the M-style multi-piece rim design. After Goodyear acquired Motor Wheel Corporation ("Motor Wheel") on January 9, 1964, they designed, manufactured, distributed and sold single-piece and multi-piece rims, including the component parts of the M-style rims. (Memorandum in Support of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Memorandum"), ECF No. 154, p. 8). On or around December 30, 1986, Goodyear sold Motor Wheel to MWC Holdings, Inc. ("MWC"). (Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of The Goodyear Tire &Rubber Company's Motion for Summary Judgment ("SUMF"), ECF No. 155, ¶13).1 Due to that sale, Motor Wheel became independent and has not been a subsidiary or corporate affiliate of Goodyear since December 31, 1986. (SUMF, ¶15). As of approximately March 31, 1987, Goodyear left the business of designing, manufacturing, and marketing multi-piece rims. (SUMF, ¶16).
The rim at issue in this case was manufactured by The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company ("Firestone"). (SUMF, ¶7). The manufacturer's identification markings on the lock ring and the flange components indicate Motor Wheel manufactured them on May 7, 1992 and November 11, 1992, respectively. (SUMF, ¶¶8-9). That is, the lock ring and flange components were manufactured by Motor Wheel, after Goodyear sold Motor Wheel on or about December 30, 1986 and after Goodyear left the business of manufacturing multi-piece rims on or about March 30, 1987.
Plaintiffs reached a settlement with the defendants responsible for the manufacture and sale of the rim components, i.e., the Firestone Defendants and Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. ("HLI"), the successor-in-interest to Motor Wheel. Goodyear is the only defendant remaining in this action. Plaintiffs maintain claims against Goodyear for strict liability and negligence on behalf of Gary Emmons, as well as a claim for loss of consortium by Plaintiff Deborah Emmons.
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Citrate, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Torgerson v. Cityof Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of its pleading. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 258.
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331. The Court's function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "'Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.'" Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000)).
"To prevail under a strict liability theory in a defective design case, plaintiffs must prove four elements: (1) the product was sold in the course of the defendant's business; (2) at that time, the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use; (3) the product was put to use in a reasonably anticipated manner; and (4) the plaintiff wasdamaged as a direct result of a defective condition which existed at the time the product was sold." Bass v. GMC, 150 F.3d 842, 847 (8th Cir. 1998)(citing Pree v. Brunswick Corp., 983 F.2d 863, 865 (8th Cir. 1993); Mulligan v. Truman Med. Ctr., 950 S.W.2d 576, 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997); Fahy v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 740 S.W.2d 635, 637-38 (Mo. 1987) (en banc); Mo. Ann Stat. §§ 537.760 et seq.); Engel v. Corrigan Co.-Mech. Contrs., Inc., 148 S.W.3d 28, 30 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). "Strict liability was adopted in part 'to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers (and sellers) that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.'" Gramex Corp. v. Green Supply, 89 S.W.3d 432, 439 (Mo. 2002)(citing Keener v. Dayton Electric Mfg. Co., 445 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Mo. 1969)). The purpose of strict liability is "to allow injured consumers or remote parties the ability to sue suppliers, sellers or manufacturers absent the technical requirements of privity in a contract action or without the need to prove negligence in a tort action." Sharp Bros. Contracting Co. v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 703 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Mo. 1986); Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, cmt. c ("public policy demands that the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption be placed upon those who market them, and be treated as a cost of production against which liability insurance can be obtained; and that the consumer of such products is entitled to the maximum of protection at the hands of someone, and the proper persons to afford it are those who market the products").2
Plaintiffs essentially allege that Goodyear is liable based upon a defective wheel design it put into the marketplace more than a half a century ago. Plaintiffs also contend that Goodyearshould be strictly liable because its design created consumer demand for and reliance upon the product. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Goodyear's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Response"), ECF No. 164, p. 6). Plaintiffs argue that the parts at issue were manufactured by Motor Wheel based on Goodyear's original design. (Response, p. 7; Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("PSUMF"), ECF No. 165, ¶2). The only changes to Goodyear's design were the elongation of a metal tab, a logo change, and moving the warning sticker. (SUMF, ¶24). Even though Goodyear admittedly exited the market of this product more than 5 years prior to the production of the M-style rim, Plaintiffs maintain that Goodyear is still liable because it "created the market" for the product at issue and now benefits from selling tires for the M-style rims. (Id., pp. 8-9).
The Court finds that Goodyear cannot be liable to Plaintiffs because Goodyear did not place the allegedly defective product in the stream of commerce. See Ford v. GACS, Inc., 265 F.3d 670, 680 (8th Cir. 2001)("The common thread among Missouri products liability cases is that an entity must have placed a defective product in the stream of commerce.")(internal citations and quotations omitted). The M-style rim design has been in the marketplace for more than a half of a century. During that entire time, Goodyear never applied for or received any patents on the design, and Goodyear took no means to protect any purported intellectual property interest it may have had in the design. Thus, the M-style rim design has been part of the public domain virtually since its inception. Likewise, Goodyear did not sell the design or any other intellectual property rights to MWC as part of its sale of assets when it exited the wheel manufacturing business. Goodyear cannot be held strictly liable for placing the product into the stream of commerce when it did not manufacture the subject lock ring and flange and when it never held any proprietary interest in the design of said product.
Moreover, Goodyear lacks that "participatory connection" to the production of the M-style rim that injured Mr. Emmons. Gunderson, 674 S.W.2d at 668.3 Simply because a designer or manufacturer previously was engaged in placing a product in the market does not mean that it can be held liable based upon the actions of successors in the industry. Although no Missouri case addresses whether a predecessor corporation can be held liable for a product manufactured and sold by a successor corporation, Missouri courts have refused to hold companies liable for the actions of their predecessors in interest, absent recognized exceptions which are not present here. See Tucker v. Paxson Machine Co., 645 F.2d 620, 622 (8th Cir. 1981)(quoting Brockmann...
To continue reading
Request your trial