ESTLE M. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE SINGER COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a new Tennessee Supreme Court decision that may alter the applicable statute of limitations.
Plaintiff filed a products liability action which was dismissed as time-barred under a prior interpretation of Tennessee law. The dismissal was based …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Third Party Tortfeasor cases and more on FLexlaw
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Verona Deloach Downs v. J. M. Huber Corp., 580 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 868 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1989)