Opinion ID: 1298680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: status of case on appeal

Text: Following adverse summary judgment on a scraper driver's lawsuit claiming serious physical injuries caused by improperly performing equipment tires, this court considers his dismissed claims asserting liability for: 1. negligent manufacture and design of the tire by the manufacturer (Michelin); [1] 2(a). strict liability for injury producing performance of a faulty product (Michelin); 2(b). strict liability for injury producing performance of a faulty product (dealer/supplier Cobre Tire); 3(a). express warranty of the product (Michelin); 3(b). express warranty of the product (Cobre Tire); 4(a). implied warranty violation of fitness for purpose intended (Michelin); 4(b). implied warranty violation of fitness for purpose intended (Cobre Tire); 5(a). failure to warn (Michelin); 5(b). failure to warn (Cobre Tire); 6(a). negligent delayed removal (Michelin); and 6(b). negligent delayed removal (Cobre Tire). The trial court granted summary judgment on all eleven claims. The majority affirms the summary judgment injury claim denials resulting from the faulty tires for the complaints of negligent manufacture and design of Michelin Tire Corporation (Michelin); strict liability  Michelin and Cobre Tire; implied warranty of merchantability  Michelin and Cobre Tire; and express warranty  Michelin and Cobre Tire and then reverses the trial court on implied warranty of fitness for the purpose intended as to both the manufacturer and dealer and negligence in delayed removal as to both manufacturer and dealer. I concur in reversal of the summary judgment decision of the trial court on implied warranty of fitness for the purpose intended and negligence in delayed removal. I concur also that facts were lacking as sufficient to deny summary judgment for express warranty application.