Long v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12707,12707 |
| Citation | 100 Idaho 183,595 P.2d 717 |
| Parties | Leonard Leroy LONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., an Ohio Corporation, and John Doe Corporation, Defendants, and Brad Ragan, Inc., a corporation, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
John B. Kugler, Pocatello, for plaintiff-appellant.
Ted V. Wood of St. Clair, Hiller, Benjamin, Wood & McGrath, Idaho Falls, for defendant-respondent.
Before SHEPARD, C. J., and McFADDEN, DONALDSON, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ.
On September 20, 1973, plaintiff Long was allegedly injured when a tire which he had just mounted on a wheel rim exploded. At the time he was working in the course and scope of his employment with Hall & Norcross Tire Co., dba Commercial Tire Service, in Pocatello.
In September, 1975, plaintiff filed suit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the manufacturer, and Brad Ragan, Inc., the distributor of the tire, alleging negligent manufacture and inspection and failure to warn on Goodyear's part and breach of implied warranty by Ragan. Goodyear answered plaintiff's amended complaint. Ragan never answered, but after taking plaintiff's deposition moved for a summary judgment claiming that It was plaintiff's employer, and hence plaintiff's workmen's compensation agreement with Commercial Tire was his exclusive remedy against Ragan. No evidence was presented on this except plaintiff's "admissions" in his deposition that he considered Ragan his employer.
The district court granted Ragan a summary judgment as well as attorney's fees and costs totaling $438.55. Plaintiff appealed. We need not yet decide whether summary judgment was proper or whether Ragan as a matter of law was plaintiff's employer, for the appeal is premature.
We note that there was no disposition below of the claim against Goodyear, nor was there any certification that the judgment in favor of Ragan was a final judgment under I.R.C.P. 54(b). 1
The purpose of the rule is to avoid piecemeal litigation and appeals, and in the absence of certification an appeal cannot be taken.
The appeal is dismissed. Costs to respondent.
1 Even if certification is given, such is not binding on this Court where it appears that the lower court abused its discretion in giving such. "Appellate review . . . ought properly to await final determination of the entire case if the parties then feel an appeal is appropriate." Pichon v. L. J. Broekemeier, Inc., 99 Idaho 598, 586 P.2d 1042 (1978). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Large v. Mayes
...521 F.2d 360, 367 (3d Cir. 1975). 1 Gleason v. Lavaterra, No. 12669, dismissed by order on June 4, 1979; Long v. Goodyear, 100 Idaho 183, 595 P.2d 717 (No. 12707 filed May 25, 1979); Pichon v. L. J. Broekemeier, 99 Idaho 598, 586 P.2d 1042 (1978); Farber v. State, 98 Idaho 928, 576 P.2d 209......
-
Contempt of Reeves, In re
...As our Supreme Court has explained, the purpose of Rule 54(b) is to avoid piecemeal litigation and appeals. Long v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 100 Idaho 183, 595 P.2d 717 (1979). Lack of certification would usually bar the appeal of a contempt order. Id. However, this is not a case where......
-
State v. Abracadabra Bail Bonds
...by precluding appeals from certain interlocutory orders unless certified as a final judgment. See Long v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 100 Idaho 183, 184, 595 P.2d 717, 718 (1979); Sivak v. State, 119 Idaho 211, 213, 804 P.2d 940, 942 (Ct.App.1991); In Re Contempt of Reeves, 112 Idaho 574, 5......
-
Kifer v. School Dist. No. 394
...granted. Pichon v. L. J. Broekemeier, Inc., 99 Idaho 598, 586 P.2d 1042 (1978). The most recent cases dismissing are Long v. Goodyear, 100 Idaho 183, 595 P.2d 717 (1979), and Gleason v. Lavaterra, No. 12669, dismissed by order on June 4, Appeal dismissed. No costs allowed. SHEPARD, Justice,......