79 N.Y.2d 289 (1992)

A manufacturer of a non-defective product has no duty to warn about potential dangers arising from the use of its product in conjunction with another manufacturer’s defective product, where the first manufacturer did not contribute to the defect, had no control over it, and did not produce it.

Summary

Francene Rastelli sued Goodyear for the wrongful death of her husband, who was killed when a multi-piece tire rim exploded while he was inflating a Goodyear tire. The rim was manufactured by Firestone and Kelsey-Hayes, not Goodyear. Rastelli argued Goodyear had a duty to warn about the dangers of using its tires with multi-piece rims and that Goodyear engaged in a concerted action with other manufacturers to suppress safety information. The New York Court of Appeals held that Goodyear had no duty to warn about a defect in another manufacturer’s product and that the evidence was insufficient to establish a concerted action claim because it only showed parallel activity.

Facts

John Wunderlich was killed in June 1984 while inflating a Goodyear tire mounted on a multi-piece rim. The rim, an RH5 model, consisted of parts manufactured by Firestone and Kelsey-Hayes. Goodyear did not manufacture or sell the rim or its parts. The Goodyear tire was compatible with some, but not all, multi-piece rim assemblies. Rastelli, as administratrix, sued Goodyear and other rim manufacturers alleging negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, and concerted action.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court denied Goodyear’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified, granting summary judgment to Goodyear on the breach of warranty claims but otherwise affirmed, finding sufficient evidence for the concerted action, strict products liability, and negligence claims. Goodyear appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by leave of the Appellate Division.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Goodyear may be subject to concerted action liability under the alleged facts in this product liability action.
2. Whether Goodyear has a duty to warn against its non-defective tire being used with an allegedly defective tire rim manufactured by others.

Holding

1. No, because the plaintiff only demonstrated parallel activity among rim manufacturers, which is insufficient to establish a concerted action claim.
2. No, because Goodyear had no control over the rim’s production, did not place it in the stream of commerce, and its tire did not cause the rim’s defect.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the concerted action claim, the Court stated that “[i]t is essential that each defendant charged with acting in concert have acted tortiously and that one of the defendants committed an act in pursuance of the agreement which constitutes a tort.” The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations and exhibits showed only parallel activity among the rim manufacturers, such as campaigning for OSHA regulations and lobbying against a ban on multi-piece rims. This was insufficient to prove an agreement or common scheme to commit a tort. Citing Hymowitz v. Lilly & Co., the court emphasized that parallel activity alone is not enough to justify holding one manufacturer liable for another’s product.

Regarding the duty to warn, the Court declined to impose a duty on Goodyear to warn about another manufacturer’s product’s defects. The court reasoned that Goodyear’s tire was not defective, and the accident would not have occurred if a sound rim had been used. The Court distinguished cases where the combination of two sound products creates a dangerous condition. Here, the defect was solely in the rim, and Goodyear had no role in its production or distribution. “Goodyear had no control over the production of the subject multipiece rim, had no role in placing that rim in the stream of commerce, and derived no benefit from its sale. Goodyear’s tire did not create the alleged defect in the rim that caused the rim to explode.”