Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:05CV478 (JCH).
| Decision Date | 21 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:05CV478 (JCH). |
| Citation | 462 F.Supp.2d 296 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Marjorie ROSENTHAL, et al., Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Louise M. Roselle, Paul M. DeMarco, Stanley M. Chesley, Troy W. Skeens, Jr., Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley CO, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, J. Craig Smith, Richard A. Bieder, William M. Bloss, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C., Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiffs.
James M. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, P.C., Boston, MA, Mark Judson Hoover, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, East Hartford, CT, David T. Moss, Hanna, Campbell & Powell, LLP, Akron, OH, Marc R. Brosseau, Kerr, Brosseau, O'Brien, LLC, Denver, CO, Matthew Feigenbaum, Cohn, Birnbaum & Shea, Westport, CT, Richard H. Schliem, III., Yockey, Yockey & Schliem, Farmington Hills, MI, Scott G. Edwards, Hartline, Dacus, Barger, Dreyer & Kern, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Thomas W. Witherington, Cohn, Birnbaum & Shea, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs, Marjorie Rosenthal, individually and as executrix of the Estate of Amal Murarka, Sumeet Murarka, and Pamela Murarka, have asserted numerous claims against defendants Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC ("BFNT"), and BFS Retail & Commercial Operations, LLC ("BFRC") d/b/a Firestone Tire and Service Center.1 The claims arise from a one-car automobile accident that occurred when a Firestone tire tread separated and caused a 1995 Ford Explorer to roll over repeatedly. Amal Murarka and Sumeet Murarka were in the Explorer at the time of this accident, which instantly killed Amal Murarka and seriously injured Sumeet Murarka. The other two plaintiff's, Marjorie Rosenthal and Pamela Murarka, were in the car behind, and witnessed the accident.
The defendants have moved for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims for strict liability, breaches of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation, fraud, violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), and punitive damages, asserting that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning any of the plaintiffs' claims.
In a motion for summary judgment, the burden lies on the moving party to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); SCS Communications, Inc. v. Herrick Co., 360 F.3d 329, 338 (2d Cir.2004). The moving party may satisfy this burden "by showing — that is pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir.2002) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); accord Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir.1995).
A court must grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact...." Miner v. City of Glens Falls, 999 F.2d 655, 661 (2d Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine, "`if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Aldrich v. Randolph Cent. Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 523 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 965, 113 S.Ct. 440, 121 L.Ed.2d 359 (1992). After discovery, if the nonmoving party "has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof," then summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
The court resolves "all ambiguities and draw[s] all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party in order to determine how a reasonable jury would decide." Aldrich, 963 F.2d at 523 (internal citation omitted). Thus, "`[o]nly when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of the evidence is summary judgment proper.'" Id (quoting Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849, 112 S.Ct. 152, 116 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991)); see also Suburban Propane v. Proctor Gas, Inc., 953 F.2d 780, 788 (2d Cir.1992) (). "`If, as to the issue on which summary judgment is sought, there is any evidence in the record from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the opposing party, summary judgment is improper.'" Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 82-83 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting GUMMO v. Village of Depew, 75 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.1996)).
When a motion for summary judgment is supported by sworn affidavits or other documentary evidence permitted by Rule 56, the nonmoving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the [nonmoving] party's pleading." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e); Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir.1995). Rather, "the [nonmoving] party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56], must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial" in order to avoid summary judgment. Id "The non-movant cannot escape summary judgment merely by vaguely asserting the existence of some unspecified disputed material facts, or defeat the motion through mere speculation or conjecture." Western World Ins. Co. v. Stack Oil, Inc., 922 F.2d 118, 121 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Similarly, a party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible. Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 532 (2d Cir.1993).
On April 3, 2001, Paul Rosenthal, a Connecticut resident, gave his 1995 Ford Explorer to his daughter, plaintiff Marjorie Rosenthal, and son-in-law, the decedent, Amal Murarka. See Ford's Loc.R.Civ.P 56(a)1 Statement ("Ford's Stat.") at Ex. D, Bill of Sale [Doc. No. 108]. The vehicle had been bought by Mr. Rosenthal in 1998, and the Firestone FR680 steel-belted radial tires that were on the Explorer at the time of the accident had been purchased by Mr. Rosenthal from a Firestone Service Center in Stamford, CT, in 1997. Firestone's Stat. at Ex. J [Doc. No. 106]. The car had initially been leased by Mr. Rosenthal beginning in 1995, who then purchased it in 1998 for his own use. During this entire period, the car was registered in Connecticut. See Plf.'s Loc.R.Civ.P. 56(a)2 Statement ("Plf.'s Stat.") at Ex. P. Rosenthal Dep. at 9.3
In 2002, plaintiffs Marjorie Rosenthal and Amal Murarka moved from Baltimore, MD, to North Carolina, where they both accepted jobs at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Firestone's Stat. at Ex. D, M. Rosenthal Dep. at 13, 17. In August 2003, Sumeet Murarka, Aural Murarka's brother, and his wife Pamela, both New York residents, were vacationing in North Carolina. Firestone's Stat. at Ex. A, Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 7. On August 16, 2003, Amal Murarka was driving the Ford Explorer, with his brother Sumeet Murarka as passenger, on I-40 near Benson, North Carolina. Ford's Stat. at Ex. ¶¶ 1-3, 5, Amended Complaint ("Am.Compl."). Marjorie Rosenthal and Pamela Murarka and their children were in the car behind.
The Ford Explorer was involved in a single-car automobile accident. While driving on I-40, the tread on the left rear Firestone tire separated, and the Explorer rolled over repeatedly on the highway. See Plf.'s Corrected Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment ("Mem. in Opp.") at 2-3 [Doc. No. 115]; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27-29. Plaintiffs state that both Amal and Sumeet Murarka were wearing their seatbelts. See Plf.'s Mem. in Opp. at 2. Defendants allege that Amal Murarka was contributorily negligent. See Firestone's Reply Mem. at 2, Firestone's Answer to Am. Compl. at Third and Fifteenth Affirmative Defenses.
The accident resulted in the immediate death of Aural Murarka and injuries were suffered by Sumeet Murarka, who was initially treated in a hospital in North Carolina. Firestone's Stat. at Ex. A, Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 30, 31. Following the accident, Amal Murarka's estate was opened in North Carolina and Marjorie Rosenthal was appointed executrix. Id. at Ex. E. In. June 2004, Marjorie Rosenthal moved with her children to Connecticut. Id. at Ex. D, M. Rosenthal Dep. at 3. The plaintiffs had initially filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of Ohio. Id. at Ex. F, Ohio Complaint.
The defendants argue that North Carolina law governs the products liability claims; plaintiffs argue that Connecticut law applies. Although it is a close question, the court cannot agree with defendants that the substantive law of North Carolina should govern.
To decide which state's law applies, "a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the state in which the federal court sits." Cantor Fitzgerald Inc. v. Lutnick, 313 F.3d 704, 710 (2d Cir.2002); see also Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1.477 (1941). While Connecticut "traditionally adhered to the doctrine that the substantive rights and obligations arising out of a tort controversy are determined by the law of the place of injury, or lex loci delicti ... in certain circumstances in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Precision Trenchless, LLC v. Saertex Multicom LP
...cmt. d. However, in this case, it is “doubtful that this court's choice of law decision will have any bearing on this goal”, see Rosenthal, 462 F.Supp.2d at 303, given that parties' dispute arises from a single transaction for the liner, and its resolution is unlikely to either dissuade or ......
-
Aviles v. Wayside Auto Body, Inc.
...had not purchased a ticket to the concert and thus was not a customer, competitor, or other business person); Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., 462 F.Supp.2d 296, 312 (D.Conn.2006) (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's CUTPA claim because plaintiffs are not consumers o......
-
Simoneau v. Stryker Corp.
...855 (2d Cir. 1994), the CPLA permits a plaintiff to assert various common law theories of liability, Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 296, 307 n.11 (D. Conn. 2006). See also Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m(b) ("'Product liability claim' shall include, but is not limited to, all......
-
Goldsich v. City of Hartford
...Therefore, Goldsich does not fall within the class of persons that CUTPA intended to protect.7 See, e.g., Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 462 F.Supp.2d 296, 311-312 (D.Conn.2006) (holding that a third party who received allegedly defective products as gifts from a consumer was not within......