Opinion ID: 774926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fords' Cross-Appeal

Text: 23 The Fords cross-appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of GM. The Fords contend that summary judgment is inappropriate because a fact issue exists regarding whether GM prohibited use of the quick release ratchet. The Fords also argue that an entity that influences the design of a product through its economic relationship with the manufacturer may be held liable for both negligence and products liability. 24 We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Summary judgment is proper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Larsen v. Mayo Med. Ctr., 218 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 625 (2000).
25 Missouri has adopted section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts as its products liability jurisprudence, as codified at section 537.760 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. The common thread among Missouri products liability cases is that an entity must have 'plac[ed] a defective product in the stream of commerce.' Bailey v. Innovative Mgmt. & Inv., Inc., 916 S.W.2d 805, 807-08 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (quoting Gunderson v. Sani-Kem Corp., 674 S.W.2d 665, 668 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) and holding that construction company which loaned a nail gun to its employee was not strictly liable when friend of employee was injured by nail gun because it did not place the nail gun into the stream of commerce; rather, it engaged in an isolated, noncommercial transaction by loaning the gun to its employee); Meschik v. Mid-Am. Pipeline Co., 812 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (holding that by adding odorant to propane gas, common carrier placed defective propane gas into stream of commerce because odorant was the cause of the claimed defect); see also Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.760(1) (requiring as the first element of a products liability claim that the plaintiff establish that [t]he defendant, wherever situated in the chain of commerce, transferred a product in the course of his business). '[I]t is the defendant's participatory connection, for his personal profit or other benefit, with the injury-producing product and with the enterprise that created consumer demand for and reliance upon the product which calls for the imposition of strict liability....' Bailey, 916 S.W.2d at 807-08 (quoting Gunderson, 674 S.W.2d at 668). 26 Some courts have extended products liability to entities that are an integral part of the composite business enterprise which was responsible for placing [the defective product] in the stream of commerce. Taylor v. Gen. Motors, Inc., 537 F. Supp. 949, 954 (E.D. Ky. 1982) (internal quotations omitted) (applying Kentucky law). The court in Taylor held that General Motors was a proper party to be held strictly liable for a defective fan manufactured by another company for General Motors because G.M. exercised strict control over the design and testing of the product, particularly with regard to the critical factor of the durability standards for resistance to metal fatigue [which was the alleged defect]. Id. Similarly, the Arizona Supreme Court held Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (hereinafter Goodyear) strictly liable for a defective tire manufactured by its European subsidiary, Goodyear Tire & Rubber (Great Britain), Ltd., because Goodyear had a licensing agreement with the subsidiary, which required the subsidiary to manufacture the tires in accordance with Goodyear's formulas, specifications, and directions. Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 786 P.2d 939, 942 (Ariz. 1990). The court found strict liability to be appropriate because Goodyear participated significantly in the design, manufacture, promotion, and sale that resulted in the product reaching the consumer. Id. at 945. 27 GM cannot be said to have placed the ratchet system into the stream of commerce in this case. GM is the customer of the hauler, who in turn is the customer of the alleged defective product's designer and manufacturer. True, GM approved of the allegedly defective ratchet system for use in transporting its vehicles and, for purposes of summary judgment, we presume disapproved of the quick release ratchet, which would have been safer for automobile haulers. GM collaborated with trailer manufacturers and carriers through the GM Haulaway Committee to exchange ideas and discuss proper methods for hauling GM automobiles. However, GM did so as a customer. It did not specify the design to be used, but merely accepted or rejected the systems developed and offered by the designers. When GM was made aware of injuries associated with use of the ratchet system, it asked the designers to develop a better ratchet. It did not attempt to design one itself. The Fords have not offered any evidence that GM was involved in the actual design, manufacture, or marketing of the ratchet, other than to accept or reject a particular tie down system consistent with its needs. 28 We have noted that Missouri courts have confined the reach of [the products liability] doctrine to distributors either by sale, lease, or bailment. Wright v. Newman, 735 F.2d 1073, 1079 (8th Cir. 1984). We have not found any Missouri cases, nor have the parties directed us to any, that have extended products liability beyond those entities. Even if we believed that the Missouri judiciary would extend its products liability doctrine to cover entities that were an integral part of the composite business enterprise which was responsible for placing [the defective product] in the stream of commerce, Taylor, 537 F. Supp. at 954, GM does not fit that description in this case. GM's status as a dominant customer of the automobile carriers may factor into such a discussion, but the remaining facts do not support such a conclusion. We decline to extend the reach of Missouri's products liability law to the facts of this case.
29 To establish a claim for negligence, Ford must prove that GM had a duty to protect [him] from injury, [GM] failed to perform that duty, and [GM's] failure proximately caused injury to [Ford.] Lopez, 26 S.W.3d at 155. Whether a duty exists is purely a question of law. Id. 30 'The common denominator that must be present is the existence of a relationship between the plaintiff and defendant that the law recognizes as the basis of a duty of care.' [Bunker v. Ass'n of Mo. Elec. Coops., 839 S.W.2d 608, 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).] In making this determination, [Missouri courts] refer 'to the body of statutes, rules, principles and precedents which make up the law.' Kopoian v. George W. Miller & Co., 901 S.W.2d 63, 68 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). 31 Parra v. Bldg. Erection Servs., 982 S.W.2d 278, 283 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). Where no duty is indicated by Missouri statute, case law, or otherwise, a fundamental prerequisite to establishing negligence is absent. See Horstmyer v. Black & Decker, (U.S.), Inc., 151 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 1998) (affirming the dismissal of a negligence claim where Missouri law did not recognized a duty to recall an allegedly defective product under the circumstances of the case despite plaintiff's claim that the harm sustained was foreseeable). 32 Ford argues generally that his injury was foreseeable to GM because GM continued to reject safer tie down systems, despite its awareness of driver injuries. Ford fails to articulate a basis in Missouri law for any duty owed by GM to the employee of the company GM hired to transport its automobiles. As we discussed above, GM did not manufacture or design the ratchet system. It did not attempt to specify the design of the system, but left that to the manufacturers' designers. Nor did it train the drivers who utilized the allegedly defective ratchet system. It merely rejected certain tie down systems as not meeting its needs. We have found no Missouri cases that have imposed a duty on an entity that influences the design of a product by its rejection of proffered alternatives. Under these facts, we cannot say that the Missouri Supreme Court would create a common law duty on GM's part to protect Ford from injuries sustained while using the ratchet system. Id. The district court correctly dismissed GM from the suit.