Wilson v. Dake Corp.

497 F. Supp. 1339, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14130
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedSeptember 25, 1980
DocketCiv. 3-80-248
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 497 F. Supp. 1339 (Wilson v. Dake Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilson v. Dake Corp., 497 F. Supp. 1339, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14130 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

This is a products liability action premised on strict liability (Rest.2d Torts § 402A) and breach of warranty theories (T.C.A. §§ 47-2-313, 47-2-314). Plaintiffs allege that Anna Jo Wilson was injured in June 1979, while operating a machine manufactured by defendant Dake Corporation. The parties do not dispute that the machine was sold to plaintiff’s employer in 1963. Accordingly defendant Dake Corporation has moved for summary judgment claiming that the cause of action is barred by the ten-year statute of limitations contained in T.C.A. § 23-3703.

Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations is not applicable because defendant had a continuing duty to plaintiff to warn of the dangers of the machine, to provide updated safety instructions, and to install updated safety equipment on the machines.

T.C.A. § 23-3703 provides, in pertinent part, that a products liability action

*1340 in any event, ... must be brought within ten (10) years from the date on which the product was first purchased for use or consumption....

The Tennessee Products Liability Act, T.C.A. § 23-3701 et seq., covers “all actions based on the following theories: strict liability in tort; ... breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct.... ” T.C.A. § 27-3702. We are of the opinion that under the clear meaning of the statute, plaintiffs’ action is barred.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, sustained, and that the case be dismissed.

Order Accordingly.

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

Related

Electric Power Board v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
716 F. Supp. 1069 (E.D. Tennessee, 1988)
Stutts v. Ford Motor Co.
574 F. Supp. 100 (M.D. Tennessee, 1983)
Mathis v. Eli Lilly and Co.
577 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Tennessee, 1981)
Hinton v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co.
510 F. Supp. 180 (N.D. Alabama, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
497 F. Supp. 1339, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-dake-corp-tned-1980.