Dillaha v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.
Decision Date | 05 May 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93-2871,93-2871 |
Citation | 23 F.3d 1376 |
Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P. 13,876 Thomas Tansil DILLAHA, Appellant, v. YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A., Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Donna J. Wolfe, Little Rock, AK, argued (David S. Mitchell and Douglas Bonner, on the brief), for appellant.
Michael Stephen Bingham, Little Rock, AK, argued, for appellee.
Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
In this diversity action, Thomas Tansil Dillaha appeals from the District Court's 1 order granting summary judgment in favor of Yamaha Motor Corporation (YMC). We affirm.
On August 29, 1987, Dillaha suffered serious injuries when the go-kart he was driving went out of control and struck a gas meter and pipeline. On August 28, 1990, Dillaha filed suit in Arkansas state court against a number of defendants, including YMC. Relevant to this appeal, the state complaint alleged that YMC "was negligent in the design and manufacture of" the go-kart. On January 9, 1991, Dillaha took a voluntary nonsuit in the state action.
On January 7, 1992, Dillaha filed a complaint against YMC in federal district court alleging causes of action for negligent design, negligent manufacture, failure to warn, strict liability, and breach of warranty. YMC answered and pleaded the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Following over one year of discovery, YMC moved for summary judgment contending that the claims for strict liability, breach of warranty, and failure to warn were time-barred and that YMC could not be liable based on negligent design and negligent manufacture because it only distributed and did not manufacture or design the go-kart. The District Court granted summary judgment to YMC.
We review the District Court's grant of summary judgment de novo, United States ex rel. Glass v. Medtronic, Inc., 957 F.2d 605, 607 (8th Cir.1992), applying the same standards as the District Court, Kuhnert v. John Morrell & Co. Meat Packing, Inc., 5 F.3d 303, 304 (8th Cir.1993). We must decide whether the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In addition, we review de novo the District Court's determination of state law. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 1220, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991).
At oral argument, the parties agreed that the causes of action raised in Dillaha's federal complaint would be time-barred unless they were saved by the Arkansas savings statute. See Ark.Code Ann. Sec. 16-56-126 (Michie 1987). This statute allows a party to file a new complaint within one year of a nonsuit as long as the cause of action is "the same in substance as the [original complaint] at the time the latter was nonsuited." Morgan Distrib. Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868 F.2d 992, 994 (8th Cir.1989).
We reject Dillaha's argument that because his state complaint can be categorized as a "products liability" action, his breach of warranty, failure to warn, and strict liability causes of action are not time-barred. Under Arkansas law, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict liability are each distinct causes of action, requiring different elements of proof. See West v. Searle & Co., 305 Ark. 33, 806 S.W.2d 608, 610 (1991) ( ); W.M. Bashlin Co. v. Smith, 277 Ark. 406, 643 S.W.2d 526, 529 (1982) (); Harvey v. Eastman Kodak...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. Chisom
... ... Dillaha ... 501 F.3d 923 ... v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 23 F.3d 1376, ... ...
-
Frisby v. Milbank Mfg. Co.
...be “the same in substance” as the nonsuited workers' compensation claim for savings statute purposes, see Dillaha v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 23 F.3d 1376, 1377–78 (8th Cir.1994). But we need not address these issues. 6. Of course, a circuit court has jurisdiction from the outset if “the......
-
Hampton v. Wells Fargo Bank
...is ‘the same in substance as the [original complaint] at the time the latter was nonsuited.'” Dillaha v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 23 F.3d 1376, 1377 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Morgan Distrib. Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868 F.2d 992, 994 (8th Cir.1989)). Mr. Hampton's trespass claim depends u......
-
Hampton v. Wells Fargo Bank
... ... Chalmers v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. , 326 Ark ... 895, 906, 935 S.W.2d ... Dillaha v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. , 23 F.3d 1376, ... ...