PAPWORTH v. LANDROVER NORTH AMERICA INC (2003)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Cynthia PAPWORTH, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of John T. Papworth, Deceased, Paige Papworth, Individually, and Taylor Papworth, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. LANDROVER NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, and Michelin North America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. (Action No. 1.)
Cynthia Papworth, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of John T. Papworth, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Midas International, Inc., by and through its Agents, Officers and/or Employees, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Utica Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Cynthia Papworth and John Papworth, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Landrover North America, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Michelin North America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. (Action No. 3.)

Decided: November 21, 2003

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, AND GORSKI, JJ.

Webster Szanyi LLP, Buffalo, and Piper Rudnick LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Matthew A. Goldberg, of the Pennsylvania Bar, Admitted ProHac Vice, of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Cherundolo, Bottar & Leone, P.C., Syracuse (Jerrold P. O'Brien of Counsel), for Plaintiffs-Respondents Cynthia Papworth, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of John T. Papworth, Deceased, Paige Papworth, Individually, and Taylor Papworth, Individually. Meggesto, Crossett & Valerino, LLP, Syracuse (Heather R. La Dieu of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent Utica Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Cynthia Papworth and John Papworth, Deceased.

Plaintiffs commenced these actions seeking to recover damages arising out of the death of John T. Papworth (decedent). Decedent was killed in 1998 when the vehicle that he was driving, manufactured by defendant Landrover North America, Inc., spun out of control and rolled over several times, allegedly as a result of a tire blowout. The tire was allegedly manufactured by defendant Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA); however, MNA denies that it manufactured, sold or distributed the tire, and moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaints against it on that ground. Supreme Court denied the motions in part, and we affirm.

In support of its motions, MNA submitted proof that markings on the blown tire indicate that it was manufactured in England by the Michelin Tyre Company, Ltd. (Michelin Tyre). Both MNA and Michelin Tyre are subsidiaries of Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, of France. However, the assertions of MNA that it had not manufactured, sold or distributed that model tire were made only upon information and belief, and such assertions are insufficient to establish MNA's entitlement to summary judgment (see Onondaga Soil Testing v. Barton, Brown, Clyde & Loguidice, 69 A.D.2d 984, 416 N.Y.S.2d 116). Further, MNA also failed to establish that it had a corporate existence separate from Michelin Tyre when the subject tire was manufactured and sold.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law