Halsey et al v. AGCO Corporation et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 5/30/2017.(SCD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
SCOTT HALSEY, et al.,
Civil Case No.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant The Goodyear
Tire and Rubber Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 37].
There has been no Response, and the Motion is unopposed.
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
particular parts of materials in the record, including . . .
affidavits. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
In Plaintiff’s Complaint [DE 1-2], they aver that they were
Plaintiff Scott Halsey’s use of an AGCO tractor equipped with
“Titan/Goodyear” tires, which were sold and distributed in a
manufacture; that Defendants failed to warn Plaintiffs of the
defective and unreasonably dangerous condition; that Defendants
negligently designed, manufactured, and sold or allowed to be
“Titan/Goodyear” tires to the general public; that Defendants
breached their express warranties that the AGCO tractor and the
“Titan/Goodyear” tire was safe and fit for a particular purpose
and use for which it was intended; and that that Defendants
breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for
particular purpose of the AGCO tractor and the “Titan/Goodyear”
In each instance, the claims against The Goodyear Tire &
In support of its motion, Defendant cites the affidavit of
Corporation, who affies that “the tire at issue is a Titanbranded tire” and “not a Goodyear tire manufactured by Titan
[DE 37-2.] He further affies that “Goodyear
did not design, manufacture or distribute the tire at issue” and
that “he is not aware of there being any Goodyear tire involved
in this matter.”
[Id.] Defendant The Goodyear Tire and Rubber
designed, manufactured, or distributed the tires at issue nor is
it averred that it had any other involvement with the matters
averred in this case, the claims against it fail as a matter of
law and summary judgment is appropriate. The Court agrees, and
the claims against this defendant shall be dismissed. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1987).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant The Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 37] is
This the 30th day of May, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?