New York Law Review

Tag: Rastelli v. Goodyear

  • Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289 (1992): No Duty to Warn About Another’s Defective Product

    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.”

  • Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289 (1992): Product Liability for Forklifts Marketed with Removable Safety Guards

    Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289 (1992)

    A product may be deemed ‘not reasonably safe’ if marketed in a condition (like with a removable safety guard) that permits foreseeable uses creating an unreasonable risk of harm, even if the product can be used safely with the guard in place.

    Summary

    This case concerns a product liability claim against the manufacturer of a forklift. The plaintiff was injured while operating the forklift without an overhead safety guard, which was designed to be removable. The Court of Appeals held that summary judgment for the defendant was inappropriate because there were triable issues of fact as to whether the forklift, as marketed with the removable guard, was “not reasonably safe” for its intended or reasonably anticipated uses. The Court distinguished this case from one involving material alterations to a safety device, emphasizing evidence suggesting the forklift was designed for use without the guard.

    Facts

    The plaintiff, Rastelli, was injured while operating a forklift manufactured by the defendant, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
    The forklift was originally equipped with an overhead safety guard, but this guard was removable.
    At the time of the accident, the forklift was being operated without the safety guard attached.
    The plaintiff argued the forklift was defectively designed because it could be operated without the safety guard, creating a risk of injury.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiff sued Goodyear, alleging the forklift was defectively designed.
    The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the claim.
    The Appellate Division reversed, denying summary judgment and holding that triable issues of fact existed.
    Goodyear appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the manufacturer of a forklift is entitled to summary judgment in a product liability case when the forklift was marketed with a removable safety guard and the injury occurred while the forklift was operated without the guard.
    Whether the act of detaching a removable safety guard constitutes a material alteration that absolves the manufacturer of liability.

    Holding

    1. No, because there are triable issues of fact concerning whether the forklift, as marketed with the removable safety guard, was “not reasonably safe” for the uses intended or reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer.
    2. No, because simply detaching a removable safety guard, unlike a material alteration destroying a safety feature, does not automatically absolve the manufacturer of liability where there is evidence the product was designed to be used without the guard.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that a product can be considered “not reasonably safe” if it is marketed in a way that permits foreseeable uses that create an unreasonable risk of harm. The Court distinguished this case from Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Div., where the safety device was materially altered, destroying its functional utility. Here, there was evidence suggesting the forklift was purposefully manufactured to permit its use without the safety guard. The court stated that unlike the situation in Robinson, this case involved no “[m]aterial alterations…which work[ed] a substantial change in the condition in which the product was sold by destroying the functional utility of a key safety feature.” The court emphasized the presence of “evidence in this record that the forklift was purposefully manufactured to permit its use without the safety guard.” Therefore, the question of whether the forklift was reasonably safe for its intended uses was a question of fact for a jury to decide. The court implies that manufacturers have a duty to consider the safety implications of features they design into their products, especially when those features allow for the product’s use in a potentially dangerous manner. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the memorandum opinion.