Benedict v. Hankook Tire Company Limited et al

Filing 356

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 2/15/2018. (sbea, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

f

~

IL

FEB 15 2018

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-109

HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY
LIMITED, et al. ,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED
AND HANKOOK TIRE AMERICA CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No.
331). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
In this products liability action, Robert Benedict sues Hankook
Tire Company Limited ("HTCL") and Hankook Tire America Corporation
for

the production and distribution of an allegedly

defective tire.

Defendants seek dismissal of Benedict's Second

Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6).

A.

~

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND. VA

ROBERT BENEDICT,

( "HTAC")

[E

Factual Context
A detailed overview of the facts of this case appears in the

Court's Memorandum Opinions resolving Benedict's and Defendants'
motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 341, 343). In short, however,
this action involves a single-vehicle accident that occurred when
the front right tire (the "subject tire") of a cement truck driven

by Benedict suffered a tread separation and the truck thereafter
collided with an embankment on the side of the road. The subject tire
was a Hankook Aurora THOS Radial 425/65 R22.5 manufactured by HTCL
in South Korea in 2005 and distributed in the United States by HTAC.
B.

Procedural History

Benedict
liability

initially

negligence

asserted

{including

three

claims:

manufacturing

(1)
defect,

products
design

defect, and failure to warn); {2) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; and {3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose. First Am. Compl. 5-11. He is now pursuing
only a negligent manufacturing claim against HTCL and an implied
warranty of merchantability claim against HTCL and HTAC. Second Am.
Compl. 4, 6.
In October 2017, both sides moved for summary judgment. Benedict
sought partial summary judgment to bar Defendants' contributory
negligence

defense.

Defendants

sought

summary

judgment as

to

Benedict's active claims. The Court ruled on these motions during
a hearing held on November 20, 2017, Nov. 20, 2017 Hr' g Tr. 152, and
subsequently issued an ORDER (ECF No. 221) and Memorandum Opinions
(ECF Nos. 341, 343) formalizing its decisions.
After deciding these motions, the Court directed Benedict to
file a Second Amended Complaint containing only his active claims.
Nov. 20, 2017 Hr'g Tr. 162-63; ORDER (ECF No. 209). Benedict filed
2

his Second Amended Complaint on December 29, 2017. Defendants then
filed the motion to dismiss that is the subject of this Opinion.
THE APPLICABLE STANDARD

This Court has described the legal standard applicable to
motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6) in the following way:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a party to move for
dismissal of a claim if the complaint fails "to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P.
8 (a) (2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim"
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. "To survive
a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Igbal,
556 u. s. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
courts should assume the veracity of all well-pleaded
allegations in the Complaint, and should deny a motion to
dismiss where those well-pleaded allegations state a
plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is
"plausible" when the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient to
allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Twombly,
550 u. s. at 556. The court should grant a motion to dismiss,
however, where the allegations are nothing more than legal
conclusions, or where they permit a court to infer no more
than a possibility of misconduct. Igbal, 556 U.S. at 67879.
Reardon v. Herring, 191 F. Supp. 3d 529, 535 (E.D. Va. 2016).
DISCUSSION
A. The Arguments

Defendants observe that Count I of Benedict's Second Amended
Complaint, the negligent manufacturing claim, omits references to
3

"reasonable care" or "due care," references that were included in
the First Amended Complaint. Defs.' Br. 2. Accordingly, Defendants
maintain that Benedict now merely alleges a strict liability claim,
rather than a negligence claim, and that strict products liability
is not recognized under Virginia law. Defs.' Br. 2-3, 4-6; Defs.'
Reply Br. 2, 5.
Benedict responds that Defendants' motion "is nothing more
than a vexatious rearguing of the same issues which were put before
the Court in connection with their Motion for Summary Judgment."
Pl.'s Opp'n 1. He contends that manufacturers are under a duty to
ensure that their products are "fit and safe for [their] foreseeable
uses and misuses. 11 See Pl.' s Opp' n 3. Benedict argues that a plaintiff
alleges a breach of this duty not by claiming "a lack of 'due care' 11
but rather by asserting that "the product contained an unreasonably
dangerous

condition

that

existed

defendant's hands." See Pl.'s Opp'n

when
3-4

the

product

left

the

(citations omitted}.

B. Analysis

The Court agrees with Benedict that Defendants' motion is
largely an attempt to reassert arguments that

it has already

presented to this Court in support of its motion for summary judgment.
The required elements of a negligent manufacturing claim in Virginia
have been set out in the Memorandum Opinion resolving that motion.
(ECF No.

343} •

The Court need not repeat the entirety of the analysis
4

contained in that Opinion, and its discussion of the legal standards
and authorities applicable to Virginia negligent manufacturing
claims is incorporated here.
In short,

however,

(ECF No. 343).

the Court previously concluded that a

plaintiff suing a manufacturer of an allegedly defective product
under Virginia law need only establish:

(1)

that

the product

contained a defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous for
ordinary or foreseeable use; (2) that the defect existed when it left
the defendant's hands;

and

question of whether the

(3)

causation.

defendant was

(ECF No.

343).

1

negligent or failed

The
to

discharge its duty of care is "bound up" with this basic products
liability inquiry.

(ECF No. 343). Consequently, although Virginia

officially does not recognize strict products liability,

it has

largely

strict

abandoned

the

practical

distinctions

between

liability and negligence in the products liability context. (ECF No.
343) .
Benedict's omission of references to "due care" or "reasonable
care," therefore, is not a ground to grant Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Furthermore, Benedict' s Second
Amended Complaint otherwise plausibly alleges the required elements
1

To be clear, the product must be the defendant' s product. See Slone
v. Gen. Motors Corp., 457 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Va. 1995); Dameron v. Fort
Worth Steel & Mach. Corp., LE 1626, 1985 WL 306781, at *7 (Va. Cir.
Ct. Mar. 26, 1985). The court need not address the contours of that
issue, however, because Benedict has pleaded that HTCL manufactured
the subject tire. See Second Am. Comp!. 2-5.
5

of a Virginia negligent manufacturing claim, and Defendants have
offered no argument to the contrary. Benedict asserts that the
subject

tire

was

manufactured by HTCL with

specific

defects

{inadequate component bonding and an inner liner too thin to prevent
excessive

oxygen

permeation

and

component

degradation),

predisposing it to fail by way of a tread/belt separation during its
service life, that those defects existed at the time the subject tire
left HTCL's hands, that the subject tire indeed failed because of
a tread/belt separation caused by those defects, that the subject
tire's failure occurred while affixed to a cement truck driven on
a public road {Route 288) by Benedict, and that the subject tire's
failure resulted in a vehicle rollover and a variety of specified
injuries. Second Am. Compl. 2-5.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED AND
HANKOOK TIRE AMERICA CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 331)
will be denied.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virgi/~
Date: February
, 2018
6