## Facts

- George Healey, Jr. was seriously injured at a trucking company’s premises when a component of a multipiece truck tire rim explosively separated after a freshly inflated tire on the rim was dropped by an employee.
- Healey sued the trucking company (owner of the trucks and rims) and Firestone, asserting negligence and strict products liability, including manufacturing-defect and design-defect theories.
- Before suit, the court ordered preservation of rims and permitted inspections; plaintiff’s experts examined rims on the trucks and at the premises.
- One expert inventoried rims and described most as “Firestone-designed Accu-Ride” rims.
- Another expert examined all accessible rims and concluded that only three rims—identified as designed and manufactured by Firestone—could have been involved because they showed substantial “chording” (distortion/out-of-round condition), which he opined caused the explosive separation.
- Plaintiff alleged those three rims were marked and left with the trucking company under an understanding they would be preserved, but the trucking company later disclosed that the three rims were lost.
- Multiple manufacturers produced similar three-piece rims, and Firestone’s rim design and manufacturing assets had been sold to another company that continued producing rims under the same “Accu-Ride” name.
- Evidence indicated the trucking company routinely discarded damaged rims without reliable inventory controls, creating uncertainty whether the accident rim still existed when inspections occurred or whether it was among the inspected rims.

## Issues

1. Whether circumstantial evidence established a reasonable probability (not mere possibility) that Firestone manufactured the particular rim involved in the accident.
2. Whether the loss of the allegedly involved rim so impaired Firestone’s ability to defend the design-defect claim that summary judgment should be granted.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the order allowing the design-defect claim to proceed against Firestone.
- The court granted summary judgment to Firestone and dismissed the complaint against Firestone in its entirety.
- The court held plaintiff’s proof did not rise above speculation and failed to show a reasonable probability that Firestone manufactured the rim that caused the injury.
- The court also treated the missing rim as heightening prejudice to Firestone’s ability to evaluate the rim’s condition and challenge causation and defect allegations.

## Legal Principles

- A product manufacturer may be identified through circumstantial evidence, but the proof must establish a reasonable probability, not merely a possibility, that the defendant manufactured the specific product that caused the injury.
- Evidence that a defendant made or designed some products of the relevant type is insufficient if the record cannot reasonably link the defendant to the particular injury-causing item.
- Where multiple manufacturers produce similar products and the allegedly injuring product is unavailable for inspection, the plaintiff’s identification burden is not relaxed; the absence of the product can further support summary judgment when the identification proof is otherwise speculative.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the design-defect claim against Firestone because the circumstantial evidence did not reasonably show that Firestone manufactured the specific rim that failed, and the loss of the rim further impaired Firestone’s ability to defend against the defect and causation theories.


Healey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 87 N.Y.2d 596, 663 N.E.2d 901 (N.Y. 1996)