Bice v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For these reasons, Tennessee Tire' motion 12 is GRANTED and all claims against Tennessee Tire are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The case therefore will proceed only as to Cooper. It is so ORDERED Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/23/15. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs) Modified on 9/23/2015 (afs).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
KAREN YVONNE BICE, as conservator of
GREGORY CRABTREE, as Incapacitated
Person,
Plaintiff,
v.
COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and
TENNESSEE TIRE & AUTO CLINIC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-00862
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Defendant Tennessee Tire Auto Clinic & Wrecker Service, LLC (“Tennessee Tire”) has
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 12), in support of which it has filed a
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Docket No. 13) (attaching the Declaration of Tennessee
Tire) and a Memorandum of Law (Docket No. 14). The plaintiff has not responded to the
motion.1
The Complaint alleges that, on February 3, 2014, Gregory Crabtree purchased a used tire
from Tennessee Tire (a Tennessee-based business) that had been manufactured by Cooper.
Allegedly, while Crabtree was driving his truck on an interstate highway on July 5, 2014, the tire
tread separated and fell into the highway’s lane of travel, causing a safety hazard to oncoming
drivers. Crabtree allegedly stopped his vehicle and attempted to remove the tire tread from the

1

 Because the plaintiff has not responded to the defendants’ statement of facts, the court takes the

asserted facts as undisputed for purposes of summary judgment. M.D. Tenn. Local Rule
56.01(g); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Tibbs, 2014 WL
280365, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 24, 2014) (applying Rule 56.01(g)).  
1

road, when an incoming motorcycle struck him, causing Crabtree to suffer permanent
incapacitating injuries. The plaintiff (Crabtree’s conservator) alleges claims against Tennessee
Tire and Cooper for negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. Tennessee Tire
has moved for summary judgment on the claims against it.
It is undisputed that Tennessee Tire did not in fact sell the tire at issue to Crabtree. It is
an essential element of any products liability claim that the defendant supplied the product that
caused the injury. See In re Arcadia & Zometa Prods. Liab. Litig., 2008 WL 537786, at *1-2
(M.D. Tenn. Dec. 2, 2008); Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1029 (W.D.
Tenn. 2012), aff’d 737 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2013); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Indus. Paper &
Packaging Corp., 2006 WL 2050686, at *1, *10 (E.D. July 19, 2006). The plaintiff’s claims
against Tennessee Tire are premised on the assumption that Tennessee Tire supplied the used tire
at issue. Because Tennessee Tire did not in fact supply the tire, the plaintiff cannot establish her
claims against Tennessee Tire and summary judgment is warranted.
For these reasons, Tennessee Tire’ motion is GRANTED and all claims against
Tennessee Tire are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The case therefore will proceed
only as to Cooper.
It is so ORDERED.
Enter this 23rd day of September 2015.
_____________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge

2