United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Zachary Zuber (“Plaintiff”), brings this action
against Defendant The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
(“Goodyear”), claiming negligence, recklessness,
and breach of warranty in servicing Plaintiff's vehicle,
allegedly causing an accident. See ECF No. 14, Sec. Am.
Compl.The matter is before the court on
Defendant's motion for summary judgment, filed October 7,
2019. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition
(ECF No. 34) and Goodyear filed a reply (ECF No. 35). For the
reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
case arises out of a single car accident that occurred on
September 12, 2017, when Plaintiff was driving his 1990 Ford
Bronco. ECF No. 14 at ¶ 12. Plaintiff alleges the left
rear tire “disengaged and came off of the vehicle,
” causing Plaintiff to lose control of the vehicle,
which flipped, causing him injury. Id. at
September 7, 2017, five days before the accident, Plaintiff
had Goodyear install a new set of wheels and tires, provided
by Plaintiff, on the Bronco. Id. at ¶ 9; ECF
No. 33-1 at 6 (Plaintiff dep. at 56:11-22). Plaintiff alleges
Goodyear “failed to properly install the tires, ”
leading to the accident on September 12, 2017. Id.
at ¶¶ 11, 15.
judgment should be granted if “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). It is well established that summary
judgment should be granted “only when it is clear that
there is no dispute concerning either the facts of the
controversy or the inferences to be drawn from those
facts.” Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Properties, 810 F.2d
1282, 1286 (4th Cir. 1987). The party moving for summary
judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact, and the court must view the evidence
before it and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. United States v.
Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962).
56(c)(1) provides as follows:
(1) A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . .,
admissions, interrogatory answers or other materials; or
(b) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
“cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through
mere speculation or the building of one inference upon
another.” Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir.
1985). Therefore, “[m]ere unsupported speculation . . .
is not enough to defeat a summary judgment motion.”