Hinton v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 80-G-0946-NW. |
| Citation | 510 F. Supp. 180 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
| Parties | Charlean B. HINTON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jerry Glenn Hinton, deceased, on behalf of herself and as the next friend of Tommy Hinton and Anthony Hinton, minor children of herself and Jerry Glenn Hinton, deceased, Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE RIVER PULP & PAPER COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation. |
Michael L. Weathers, Patterson & Weathers, Florence, Ala., for plaintiff.
John H. Morrow and Samuel H. Franklin, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant Westinghouse.
Braxton W. Ashe, Almon, McAlister, Ashe, Baccus & Smith, Sheffield, Ala., for defendant Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co.
This case is brought as a products liability action premised on strict liability, negligence, and wantonness. This court has jurisdiction due to diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff alleges that Jerry Glenn Hinton suffered injuries on April 10, 1980, from which he died five weeks later. At the time of his injury, Jerry Glenn Hinton was painting a transformer manufactured by the defendant Westinghouse Electric Company on the premises of the defendant Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Company. The parties do not dispute that the transformer and switch in question were put into use no later than 1961. Accordingly, defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation moved the court to enter a summary judgment in its favor due to the ten-year statute of limitations applicable against a manufacturer or seller stated in Tenn.Code Ann. § 23-3703.
The Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978, Tenn.Code Ann. § 23-3701 et seq., includes, but is not limited to:
... all actions based upon the following theories: strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent, or innocent; misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure, whether negligent, or innocent; or under any other substantive legal theory in tort or contract whatsoever.
The applicable statute of limitations, which is poorly punctuated, states:
Any action against a manufacturer or seller of a product for injury to person or property caused by its defection or unreasonably dangerous condition must be brought within the period fixed by §§ 47-2-725, 28-304, 28-305 and 28-314, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stutts v. Ford Motor Co.
...mentioning any constitutional questions. See Wilson v. Dake Corp., 497 F.Supp. 1339 (E.D.Tenn.1980); Hinton v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co., 510 F.Supp. 180 (N.D.Ala.1981). Thus, the defendant claims, application of the ten-year ceiling is I. Open Courts Plaintiff alleges that the ten-y......
-
Mathis v. Eli Lilly and Co.
...to defendants on the ground that the particular action is barred by the 10-year period of limitation. See Hinton v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co., D.C.Ala. (1981), 510 F.Supp. 180; Wilson v. Dake Corp., D.C.Tenn. (1980), 497 F.Supp. 1339. In neither of these decisions, however, was the c......
- Landis v. Watt, Civ. No. 80-2110.