Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00066/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

DANA BECK PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 3:19-cv-00066 KGB

KUM & GO, LC, KRAUSEWA, LC, 

and SENECA COMPANIES, INC. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is motion for partial summary judgment submitted by defendants 

Kum & Go, L.C. (“Kum & Go”) and Krausewa, L.C. (“Krausewa”) (Dkt. No. 4). Plaintiff Dana 

Beck filed a response to the motion (Dkt. No. 7). For the following reasons, the Court denies as 

moot defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 4).

Plaintiff Dana Beck initiated this action on August 15, 2018, in Craighead County Circuit 

Court, and this was removed to this Court on March 26, 2019 (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2). Initially, Ms. Beck 

brought suit only against Kum & Go and Krausewa (Dkt. No. 2). After Kum & Go and Krausewa 

filed their pending motion for partial summary judgment, Ms. Beck amended her complaint on 

February 27, 2019, and added Seneca Companies, Inc. (“Seneca”) as a defendant (Dkt. No. 6). In 

her amended complaint, Ms. Beck alleges that on February 13, 2017, she visited the Kum & Go 

located at the corner of Johnson Avenue and Caraway Road in Jonesboro, Arkansas, to purchase 

fuel for her automobile (Dkt. No. 6, ¶ 7). Ms. Beck claims that, in the process of pumping the fuel, 

the fuel pump malfunctioned, causing the pump not to shut off when the gas tank was full as 

intended (Id., ¶ 8). As a result, fuel began spraying from the nozzle where it was inserted into the 

tank and gasoline began spraying the car and the surrounding area (Id.). Ms. Beck asserts that she 

slipped on the wet fuel saturating the ground as she rushed to attempt to release the pump handle 

Case 3:19-cv-00066-KGB Document 23 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 3
2

(Id., ¶ 9). Ms. Beck claims that the resulting fall caused her serious injuries, including a fractured 

shoulder (Id.). 

Ms. Beck alleges three causes of action in her amended complaint: (1) negligence—failure 

to maintain premises; (2) products liability—strict liability; and (3) products liability—negligence 

(Dkt. No. 6, ¶¶ 11-34). Ms. Beck brings Count I against Kum & Go and Krausewa, Count II 

against defendant Seneca, and Count III against Seneca (Id.). 

In the instant motion, separate defendants Kum & Go and Krausewa move for partial 

summary judgment (Dkt. No. 4). In this motion, Kum & Go and Krausewa request that this Court 

summarily dismiss Ms. Beck’s products liability claims against them (Id., ¶ 4). Kum & Go and 

Krausewa assert that they were not in the business of manufacturing, supplying, selling, or 

distributing gasoline pumps, nor was Ms. Beck buying gasoline pumps (Id., ¶ 3). Accordingly, 

Kum & Go and Krausewa move to dismiss these claims against them because the Arkansas 

Products Liability Act (“APLA”), Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-116-201, requires defendants to 

be in the business of selling, manufacturing, supplying, assembling, or distributing the allegedly 

defective product for a plaintiff to bring a products liability claim against them (Id., at 3). 

In response, Ms. Beck agrees to the dismissal, without prejudice, of any products liability 

claims pled against Kum & Go and Krausewa until such time as discovery can be completed (Dkt. 

No. 7, ¶ 3). Ms. Beck amended her complaint to add Seneca as a defendant and, as of now, brings 

her products liability claims only against Seneca (Dkt. Nos. 6, ¶¶ 20-34; 7, ¶ 3). Accordingly, Ms. 

Beck notes that, while she has agreed in the filing of her amended complaint to dismiss the products 

liability claims against Kum & Go and Krausewa based upon the information provided thus far, 

Ms. Beck reserves the right to re-plead those claims against Kum & Go and Krausewa in the event 

Case 3:19-cv-00066-KGB Document 23 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 3
3

that Seneca provides contrary information or additional discovery reveals support for such claims 

(Dkt. No. 7, ¶ 4).

Since Ms. Beck currently does not bring any products liability claims against Kum & Go 

and Krausewa, the Court considers moot their pending motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 

No. 4). Kum & Go and Krausewa have already received the relief they request, as Ms. Beck has 

voluntarily dismissed her products liability claims against them (Dkt. No. 6). Should Ms. Beck 

further amend her complaint and re-plead such claims against Kum & Go and Krausewa, the 

parties may refile their motion for partial summary judgment at that time.

So ordered this 10th day of February 2020.

____________________________________

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00066-KGB Document 23 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 3