Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdiscoverynegligenceliabilitymotionsummary judgmentprobationmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilitymotionprobationappellant

Related Cases

Derechin v. State University of New York, 963 F.2d 513, 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,457, 60 USLW 2687, 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 685, 75 Ed. Law Rep. 132
View Case »
Joint Equity Committee v. Genovese, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2014 WL 4162318
View Case »
Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 42 Media L. Rep. 1033
View Case »
International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Hoffa, 242 F.Supp. 246, 59 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2460, 51 Lab.Cas. P 19,750
View Case »
Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F.2d 727
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smith v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 818, 520 N.Y.S.2d 195

Facts

Thomas B. Smith, a former probationary New York City Police Officer, was injured when a tire on his police car exploded while he was filling it with air from a portable tire inflation device at a gas station operated by Garson Automotive Center, Inc., which was franchised by Shell Oil Company. Smith sued Garson, Shell, the City of New York, and Greenwald Industries, Inc., alleging negligence in the maintenance and operation of the tire inflation device, as well as claims of strict products liability and breach of warranty against all defendants. Shell moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims against it, which the Supreme Court denied as premature.

The plaintiff Thomas B. Smith, a former probationary New York City Police Officer, was injured when a tire on his police car exploded as he was filling it with air from a portable tire inflation device that was located at a gas station operated by defendant Garson Automotive Center, Inc., d/b/a Shell Oil (hereinafter Garson).

Issue

Whether Shell Oil Company could be held liable for breach of warranty, strict products liability, or negligence in relation to the tire explosion incident.

Whether Shell Oil Company could be held liable for breach of warranty, strict products liability, or negligence in relation to the tire explosion incident.

Rule

Liability for breach of warranty or strict products liability cannot be imposed on a party that is outside the manufacturing, selling, or distributive chain.

Thus, Shell's motion should have been granted with respect to the strict products liability and breach of warranty causes of action (i.e., the second, third and fourth causes of action).

Analysis

The court determined that Shell Oil Company could not be held liable under breach of warranty or strict products liability because it did not manufacture, sell, or distribute the tire inflation device. However, the court found that the negligence claim was premature as the plaintiff had not yet completed discovery, which could reveal essential facts regarding Shell's involvement and potential liability.

It is apparent from the record that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion may exist but cannot be stated at this time as they are within the exclusive knowledge of Shell (see, CPLR 3212[f]).

Conclusion

The court modified the order to grant Shell's motion for summary judgment regarding the breach of warranty and strict products liability claims, but affirmed the denial of the motion concerning the negligence claim as premature.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof which denied those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the second, third and fourth causes of action insofar as asserted against the appellant, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Who won?

Shell Oil Company prevailed in the case regarding the breach of warranty and strict products liability claims because the court found that it was not part of the manufacturing or distribution chain for the tire inflation device.

Shell correctly notes, liability may not be imposed for breach of warranty or strict products liability upon a party that is outside the manufacturing, selling or distributive chain.

You must be