Stalker v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.Stalker v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
George R. Stalker (hereinafter decedent) died after a truck tire on which he was working еxploded in what is known in the tire industry as a zipper rupture.1 Decedent operated a truck repair business, as well as a trucking business, and he hаd over 20 years of experience working on commercial trucks, including
Plaintiff, decedent‘s widow, commenced this products liability action against Goodyear. Goodyear brought a third-party action against, among another, Rua, which unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint (35 AD3d 1050 [2006]). Plaintiff amеnded her complaint to include both Goodyear and Rua as defendants. Following disclosure, defendants made separate motions fоr summary judgment dismissing the action. Supreme Court granted the motions. Plaintiff appeals.
“A party injured as a result of a defective product may seek relief against the product manufacturer or others in the distribution chain if the defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury” (Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 100 NY2d 38, 41 [2003]). A strict products liability cause of action may be presented upon “a mistake in the manufacturing process,” “an improper design” or a “fail[ure] to provide adequate warnings regarding the use of the product” (Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 106-107 [1983]). Plaintiff argues on appeal that she raised factual issues regarding design dеfect and failure to warn.
“A defectively designed product is one which, at the time it leaves the seller‘s hands, is in a condition not reasonably contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use; that is one whose utility does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of commerce” (Scarangella v Thomas Built Buses, 93 NY2d 655, 659 [1999] [internal quotations marks and citation omitted]; see Preston v Peter Luger Enters., Inc., 51 AD3d 1322, 1323 [2008]). Defendants submitted ample proof to shift the burden to plaintiff via several experts who set forth that zipper ruptures occur as a result of low air pressure and poor maintenance rather than defective design аnd that, had decedent taken standard safety precautions, the accident would not have occurred. While Goodyear acknowledged obtaining a patent in 1994 for a process it hoped would address the zipper rupture problem, its expert explained that the patent was obtained dur
With defendants having satisfied their threshold burden on design defect, it became incumbent upon plaintiff to produce competent proof that the subject tire “as designed, was not reasоnably safe because there was a substantial likelihood of harm and it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner” (Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d at 108; see Cleary v Reliance Fuel Oil Assoc., Inc., 17 AD3d 503, 506 [2005], affd 5 NY3d 859 [2005]; Putnick v H.M.C. Assoc., 137 AD2d 179, 184 [1988]). The primary expert evidence submitted by plaintiff on the issue of design defect was an affidavit from Dennis Carlson, an engineer.2 Carlson contends that the tire was defectively designed, but he does so with generalized statements and in conclusory terms unsupported by analysis or data. While Carlson claims thаt the proposed design in the 1994 Goodyear patent “cures the problem at the heart of this case,” he provides no elaboration or explanation. A factual issue regarding design defect is not established by merely pointing to efforts within the industry to make a safer produсt, without providing some detail as to how the current product is not reasonably safe and how a feasible alternative would be safer. Plаintiff‘s proof was insufficient to raise a triable issue regarding design defect (see generally Preston v Peter Luger Enters., Inc., 51 AD3d at 1325).
Next, we consider plaintiffs inadequate warnings claim. “A manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product[s] of which it knеw or should have known” (Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d 232, 237 [1998]; see Rastelli v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 NY2d 289, 297 [1992]). However, “[w]here the person who would ben
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Lahtinen, J.