Healey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company

663 N.E.2d 901 (1996)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Healey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company

New York Court of Appeals
663 N.E.2d 901 (1996)

Facts

Healey (plaintiff) was injured by an exploding tire rim at All-Inn Trucking, Inc. Healey brought a claim of negligence and strict products liability under both manufacturing-defect and design-defect theories against Firestone Tire & Rubber Company (Firestone) (defendant). Healey presented two expert witnesses, Carl Lange and O. J. Hahn. Lange examined and inventoried the rims on All-Inn trucks, and he identified 85 of 89 rims as “Firestone-designed Accu-Ride.” However, Firestone rims were also distributed under the name Accu-Ride after Firestone sold its rim-manufacturing assets and rim design to Accuride Corporation. Therefore, those 85 rims could have included rims manufactured by Accuride after Firestone sold its truck-tire rim-making operations. Hahn examined the rims on all 10 of All-Inn’s trucks as well the spares. Hahn identified three rims that were manufactured and designed by Firestone as the only rims that could have caused the accident. Those three rims were left with All-Inn with the understanding that they would be preserved. However, Hahn described six rims as the Accu-Ride type, in contrast to being manufactured by Firestone. Biassi, an All-Inn employee, was present when Healey’s accident occurred, and he testified that the accident-causing rim was a three-piece rim. He also testified that broken and worn-out rims were discarded without any inventory control, raising a question as to whether All-Inn still had the accident-causing rim during the investigation by Healey’s experts. At least six other companies made three-piece rims. A year later, after All-Inn disclosed that it had lost the three rims Hahn had identified as the possible accident-causing rims, Firestone moved for summary judgment. Firestone claimed that the accident rim was irretrievably lost, and that Healey’s evidence was insufficient to establish the manufacturer’s identity. The appellate division dismissed Healey’s negligence and manufacturing-defect causes of action, leaving only the design-defect cause of action.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Levine, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership