Andrew Torres Amanda Torres, Husband and Wife Walter Torres Debra Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., an Ohio Corporation

concurring:

I concur. There seems no reason not to give the district court the full benefit of the answer of the Arizona Supreme Court. Accordingly, I set out the substance of that opinion, written by Vice Chief Justice Stanley G. Feldman. Quotation marks should be imagined before “Both” and after the final “facts.”:

Both Andrew and Walter Torres were injured in an automobile accident allegedly caused by tread separation of a Goodyear tire on a 1977 Triumph automobile driven by Walter. The tire was original equipment on the Triumph, which had been manufactured in Great Britain and which had been purchased by Walter’s wife, Debra. The tire was marked “Goodyear.”

The tire was manufactured by [Goodyear Tyre & Rubber (Great Britain) ] (Goodyear GB) and designed by [Goodyear International Technical Center] (GITC). Specifications for the manufacture of the tire were issued by either [Goodyear SA of Luxembourg] (Goodyear Luxembourg) or Goodyear GB. See Goodyear’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories No. 62, appended to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Goodyear USA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Jan. 15, 1987.…

Because we set forth the factual details of this litigation in Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 867 F.2d 1234, 1235-36 (9th Cir.1989) [hereinafter Torres /], we merely summarize them here. Plaintiffs-appellants the Torreses sued to recover for personal injuries suffered as a result of an automobile accident. They asserted four theories under which they believe defendant-appellee Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”) should be held liable for their injuries: (1) the “apparent manufacturer” doctrine; (2) principles of apparent agency or agency by estoppel; (3) the Arizona law of manufacturers’ warranties; and (4) the “enterprise theory” of strict products liability.

The district court exercised diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Goodyear, concluding that “neither the Arizona courts nor the Arizona legislature have accepted the expansive liability doctrines argued by the plaintiffs.”

In Torres I, 857 F.2d at 1236-37, we affirmed summary judgment in favor of Goodyear on appellants’ first three theories of liability. We then certified to the Arizona Supreme Court the remaining issue of…

901 F.2d 750 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1521 , Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 12,438 Andrew TORRES; Amanda Torres, husband and wife; Walter Torres; Debra Torres, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-2062. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 18, 1988. Prior Opinion Filed Sept. 15, 1988. Order Withdrawing Prior Opinion and Opinion and Order Certifying Question to Arizona Supreme Court Filed Feb. 15, 1989. Decided April 13, 1990. Richard D. Engler, Engler, Engler, Weil & Nelson, Yuma, Ariz., for plaintiffs-appellants. Jefferson L. Lankford, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before SNEED, HALL and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge: 1 Because we set forth the factual details of this litigation in Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 867 F.2d 1234, 1235-36 (9th Cir.1989) [hereinafter Torres I ], we merely summarize them here. Plaintiffs-appellants the Torreses sued to recover for personal injuries suffered as a result of an automobile accident.…