Estle M. Williams v. The Singer Company

Sixth Circuit

Estle M. Williams v. The Singer Company

457 F.2d 799, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10675

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 1972

Docket71-1850

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 457 F.2d 799 (Estle M. Williams v. The Singer Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estle M. Williams v. The Singer Company, 457 F.2d 799, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10675 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Estle M. Williams appeals from dismissal of his products liability personal injury action upon a holding that the action was barred because it was brought more than one year after the sale of the allegedly offending product. In rendering judgment for the defendants, the District Judge followed the holding of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Jackson v. General Motors, 223 Tenn. 12, 441 S.W.2d 482 (1969), that T.C.A. § 28-304 applied to products liability cases and that the period of limitations, began to run from the date of sale of the accused product, and not that of the injury.

Since this. appeal and the briefs of counsel were filed in this Court, the Supreme Court of Tennessee announced a decision — Harts v. Tennessee Liquified Gas Corp., Tenn. (February 7, 1972)— which may be controlling of the case before us. The Tennessee Court there held that where an involved injury provides benefits to an injured person under Workmen’s Compensation law, an action against a third party wrongdoer is controlled by T.C.A. § 50-914. In that Section, it is provided that the relevant period of limitation begins to run “from the date of injury.” This decision had not been announced at the time the District Judge in the case at bar *800 rendered his decision. The papérs before us are not sufficiently clear as to the applicable facts to warrant our directing entry of any final judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, the case remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern Division, for further consideration in light of Harts v. Tennessee Liquified Gas Corp., supra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Estle M. Williams appeals from dismissal of his products liability personal injury action upon a holding that the action was barred because it was brought more than one year after the sale of the allegedly offending product. In rendering judgment for the defendants, the District Judge followed the holding of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Jackson v. General Motors, 223 Tenn. 12, 441 S.W.2d 482 (1969), that T.C.A. § 28-304 applied to products liability cases and that the period of limitations, began to run from the date of sale of the accused product, and not that of the injury.

Since this. appeal and the briefs of counsel were filed in this Court, the Supreme Court of Tennessee announced a decision — Harts v. Tennessee Liquified Gas Corp., Tenn. (February 7, 1972)— which may be controlling of the case before us. The Tennessee Court there held that where an involved injury provides benefits to an injured person under Workmen’s Compensation law, an action against a third party wrongdoer is controlled by T.C.A. § 50-914. In that Section, it is provided that the relevant period of limitation begins to run “from the date of injury.” This decision had not been announced at the time the District Judge in the case at bar *800 rendered his decision. The papérs before us are not sufficiently clear as to the applicable facts to warrant our directing entry of any final judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, the case remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern Division, for further consideration in light of Harts v. Tennessee Liquified Gas Corp., supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F.2d 799, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estle-m-williams-v-the-singer-company-ca6-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack