Halsey et al v. AGCO Corporation et al

Filing 46

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.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AGCO CORPORATION,

et al.,,

Defendants.

Civil Case No.
16-cv-461-JMH

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.
P.

56(a).

genuinely

“A

party

disputed

asserting
must

that

support

a

the

fact

cannot

assertion

by

be

.

citing

.

.
to

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
injured

by

Defendants

as

a

direct

and

proximate

result

of

Plaintiff Scott Halsey’s use of an AGCO tractor equipped with
“Titan/Goodyear” tires, which were sold and distributed in a
defective

condition

due

to

their

defective

design

or

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
sold

the

AGCO

tractor

and

Defendants

were

negligent

per

distribution,

marketing,

and

“Titan/Goodyear”
se

in

sale

of

the

design,

the

AGCO

tires;

that

production,
tractor

and

“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”
tires.

In each instance, the claims against The Goodyear Tire &

Rubber

Company

manufacture,

or

turn
sale

on
of

its
the

involvement

tire

at

bar,

in
which

the

design,

the

moving

defendant disclaims.
In support of its motion, Defendant cites the affidavit of
Jay

Ogden,

Director

of

Tire

Technology

for

Titan

Tire

Corporation, who affies that “the tire at issue is a Titanbranded tire” and “not a Goodyear tire manufactured by Titan
Tire Corporation.”

[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
2

Company

argues

that,

because

there

is

no

evidence

that

it

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
GRANTED.
This the 30th day of May, 2017.

3