Udoinyion v. Michelin North Am. Inc.

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant in a products liability action alleging that a defect in a tire caused the blowout that resulted in the plaintiff crashing his car into a concrete barrier.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After a tire blew out on his car, Sunday N. Udoinyion brought a product liability action against Michelin North America, Inc., a division of which had manufactured the tire. The trial court granted summary judgment to Michelin. The trial court also ordered, over Udoinyion’s objection, that the transcript of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment be included in the record on appeal of the summary judgment order. Acting pro se, Udoinyion appeals both rulings. In Case No. A11A1682, Udoinyion appeals the grant of summary judgment to Michelin on the grounds that the evidence gave rise to a genuine issue of material fact and that the court erred in not allowing him to present his case at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. We find, however, that Michelin satisfied its burden on summary judgment of negating an essential element of Udoinyion’s claims —the existence of a defect —and that Udoinyion in response failed to point to any competent evidence giving rise to a genuine issue of material fact on this point. We further find that the court did not err in its conduct of the summary judgment hearing. Accordingly, we affirm in Case No. A11A1682.

In Case No. A11A2411, Udoinyion appeals the order directing the transcript of the summary judgment hearing to be transmitted as part of the record on appeal of the summary judgment order on the grounds that the transcript was fraudulent, that Michelin did not timely seek a ruling thereon, and that Michelin did not adequately respond to contentions Udoinyion made in an application for discretionary appeal. We find that the trial court did not err in ruling that the transcript accurately portrayed what had occurred at the hearing and that none of Udoinyion’s other contentions merit reversal. Accordingly, we affirm in Case No. A11A2411.

Udoinyion v. Michelin North Am. Inc.

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant in a products liability action alleging that a defect in a tire caused the blowout that resulted in the plaintiff crashing his car into a concrete barrier.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report