Tamayo v. CGS Tires US, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 8:11CV61 |
| Parties | MIGUEL TAMAYO, Plaintiff, v. CGS TIRES US, INC., DJR HOLDING CORPORATION, and HI-LINE COOPERATIVE, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant CGS Tires US, Inc. ("CGS Tires") and Defendant DJR Holding Corporation ("DJR"). (Filing No. 48). The Court has considered the parties' briefs (Filing No. 49, 64, 70, 72) and evidence (Filing No. 50, 65) submitted in support of their respective positions. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion will be granted in part, and denied in part.
Unless noted otherwise, the following facts are those that are stated in the briefs and supported by pinpoint citations to evidence in the record, that the parties have admitted, or that the parties have not properly resisted as required by NECivR 56.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
The Continental 460/85 R 38 ("Continental") tire is a type of tractor tire. It was designed and released in 1999, and uses a spliced wire bead construction instead of a continuous wire bead construction. The purpose of wire beads in tires is to secure the tire to a wheel's rim and to provide strength to the tire so that it can handle the stress imposed upon it by the load it carries, inflation pressure, and service conditions. A spliced bead construction involves the splicing together of several separate strands of wire. In contrast,a continuous bead design involves only one continuous strand of wire. The structural integrity of tires with continuous beads is greater than the structural integrity of tires with spliced beads. (Filing No. 65, Aff. of Joseph D. Walter, at CM/ECF p. 103, ¶ 9.) Tires with a continuous bead construction are safer and less likely to explode than tires with a spliced bead construction. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 104, ¶ 14.)
CGS Tyres of the Czech Republic n/k/a MITAS a.s. ("Mitas a.s.") manufactures tires including Continental tires. It is the parent corporation of CGS Tires. CGS Tires operates as the North American retailer for the tires that Mitas a.s. manufactures. CGS Tires markets, sells, and distributes tractor tires, including Continental tires, in Nebraska. It does not manufacture, design, or test Continental tires.1
DJR does business in Nebraska under the name of Schiebout Tire Company ("Shiebout"). It sells and supplies tires to various companies, including Defendant Hi-Line Cooperative, Inc. ("Hi-Line").2 One type of product DJR sells is tractor tires, including Continental tires. DJR was a customer of and purchased merchandise, includingContinental tires, from CGS Tires. DJR has had no role or involvement in the manufacture or design of Continental tires. DJR also has had no role or involvement in the testing of Continental tires, or in testing tires in general. DJR has not provided any written or express warranties with regard to any Continental tires.
Plaintiff Miguel Tamayo became involved with tires at an early age. He is now about forty-five years old, and he started to build tires at the age of seventeen or eighteen years. He has had experiences with the entire process of building tires, including constructing tires with wire beads. When building tires, he would use a continuous bead construction. He has attended numerous trade shows and tire conventions to learn about various types of tires, and his experience with tires has included working with various types and sizes of tires. Prior to August 3, 2007, Tamayo had installed Continental tires about thirty times, and he has never experienced any problems when doing so. He does not remember if he has ever read the instructions on how to mount or demount a Continental Tire. (Filing No. 50-4, at CM/ECF p. 24, 60:3-6.) He has read the warning displayed on the side of Continental tires numerous times. The warning states:
Sometime around August of 2007, Tamayo worked as a tire technician for Hi-Line. As a tire technician, his duties included changing various tires, including agricultural, consumer, and commercial tires. On August 3, 2007, Lynn Frederick, a farmer, called Tamayo and indicated that he needed a new tire put on his tractor. Tamayo informedFrederick of the tires he could choose from. Frederick asked Tamayo to install a Continental tire and to bring a "tube and calcium" to add weight to the tire in order to reduce the tractor's risk of "spinning out." Tamayo was not concerned about using a Continental tire.
Tamayo went to Hi-Line to find a Continental tire. He selected one and inspected it for flaws. He was comfortable with the Continental tire he selected (the "Tire"). Following his inspection, he loaded the Tire onto his truck and proceeded to Frederick's farm. CGS Tires sold the Tire to DJR on or about January 5, 2007. (Filing No. 50-9, at ¶ 12; Filing No. 65, at CM/ECF p. 22-23.)3 DJR delivered the Tire to Hi-Line on or about January 8, 2007. (Filing No. 50-9, at ¶ 12; Filing No. 65, at CM/ECF p. 18.)
After arriving at Frederick's farm, Tamayo used a jack to raise Frederick's tractor and removed the old tire. Prior to installing the Tire, Tamayo inspected it again to make sure that no beading wires were sticking out of the rubber. He did not find any problems with the Tire during his inspection. Tamayo then proceeded to install the Tire. He seated the Tire's beads, put calcium in the Tire, and inflated the Tire to the proper air pressure. He does not remember whether he read the warnings on the Tire on August 3, 2007, or whether he read the mounting or demounting instructions for the Tire. He was comfortable with his inspection and installation of the Tire. He did everything properly when installing the Tire. After Tamayo installed the Tire, he lowered the axle of the tractor off of the jack.When Tamayo released the jack, the Tire exploded and Tamayo sustained injuries. Prior to August 3, 2007, Tamayo had never been involved in a tire-related incident.
After the Tire exploded, Tamayo drove back to Hi-Line to get another Continental tire so that he could install it on Frederick's tractor. Before he began installing the new Continental tire, he inspected the Tire. Tamayo concluded that the wire bead in the Tire broke and failed to hold the Tire together on the rim of Frederick's tractor. When installing the new Continental tire, Tamayo went through the same procedure as he did when he installed the Tire. When he let the new Continental tire off of the jack, it did not explode. Frederick was able to use his tractor, and has not had any problems with the rim or new Continental tire. Two days later, a representative of DJR received notice that the Tire exploded. (Filing No. 65, Aff. of Roy Evans, at CM/ECF p. 100, ¶ 7.) CGS Tires and its representatives also received notice of the explosion sometime in August of 2007. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-11.)
Sometime in March of 2009, Tamayo retained Joseph D. Walter as an expert in the field of tire failures. (Filing No. 65, at CM/ECF p. 102, ¶¶ 3-4.) On April 15, 2009, Joseph D. Walter personally inspected and examined the Tire. (Id. at ¶ 5.) He confirmed that the tire had a spliced bead construction, and concluded that the Tire exploded because of its spliced bead construction. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 103, ¶ 7.) He believed that it was (Id. at CM/ECF p. 104, ¶ 13.)4
On January 7, 2011, Tamayo filed a Complaint in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska (Filing No. 1-1), alleging CGS Tires and DJR are liable to him for his damages caused by their negligence, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose. Tamayo also alleged that CGS Tires is liable to him based on a theory of strict liability. On February 17, 2011, CGS Tires and DJR filed a Notice of Removal. (Filing No. 1.) On December 15, 2011, the Court dismissed Tamayo's strict liability claim. On April 23, 2012, CGS Tires and DJR filed the present Motion, seeking the dismissal of Tamayo's three remaining claims.
"Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, demonstrates there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Gage v. HSM Elec. Prot. Serv., Inc., 655 F.3d 821, 825 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). The court will view "all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and mak[e] all reasonable inferences in [that party's] favor." Schmidt v. Des Moines Pub. Sch., 655 F.3d 811, 819 (8th Cir. 2011). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue . . . Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment motion to be opposed by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the mere pleadingsthemselves." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). The moving party need not negate the nonmoving party's claims by showing "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 325. Instead, "the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing' . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id.
In response to the movant's showing, the nonmoving party's burden is to produce specific facts demonstrating "'a genuine issue of material fact' such that [its] claim should proceed to trial."...
To continue reading
Request your trial