Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04189/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04189-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Davison Transport
Not Party
Coy Stephen Lyons
Appellant
Potlatch Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4189

___________

Coy Stephen Lyons, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

Davison Transport, Inc., *

* Appeal from the United States

Intervenor-Plaintiff, * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Potlatch Corporation, *

* 

Defendant-Appellee. *

*

___________

Submitted: October 14, 2005

Filed: March 6, 2006

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Coy Stephen Lyons, a tanker-truck driver for Davison Transport, Inc., appeals

the district court's1

 grant of summary judgment to Potlatch Corporation (Potlatch) in

Appellate Case: 04-4189 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2006 Entry ID: 2017165
-2-

Lyons' diversity suit against Potlatch for negligence under Arkansas law. The district

court held that Potlatch owed Lyons, a business invitee, a duty to use ordinary care to

maintain its Cypress Bend mill facilities in a reasonably safe condition while Lyons

unloaded sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) at the mill in September of 1996. The court

found that Potlatch did not violate that duty. The court also found that Potlatch did

not exercise control over the NaHS unloading process, rendering inapplicable a duty

under Arkansas law to exercise reasonable care in exercising such control. See Elkins

v. Arkla, Inc., 849 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Ark. 1993). We agree with both conclusions. 

We have carefully considered Lyons' arguments to the contrary. Upon de novo

review, Liszewski v. Target Corp., 374 F.3d 597, 599 (8th Cir. 2004), we find no error

in the district court's grant of summary judgment and affirm on the basis of its wellreasoned memorandum order, see 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4189 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2006 Entry ID: 2017165