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
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?