FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S
EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MARCH 17, 2011

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 3 4 7 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 0 0 8 1 0

- C V

- J O F

- 1

R O N A L D J

. C A M P B E L L

, J R

. , K R I S T I E C A M P B E L L

,

P l a i n t i f f s

- A p p e l l a n t s ,

G E O R G I A P O W E R C O M P A N Y

,

I n t e r v e n o r

- P l a i n t i f f

A p p e l l a n t

,

v e r s u s

A L T E C I N D U S T R I E S

, I N C

. , T E X A S H Y D R A U L I C S

, I N C

. , J O H N D O E C O R P O R A T I O N # 1

, J O H N D O E C O R P O R A T I O N # 2

,

D e f e n d a n t s

- A p p e l l e e s

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( M a r c h 1 7

, 2 0 1 1 )

B e f o r e T J O F L A T

, W I L S O N a n d E B E L

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. *

P E R C U R I A M :

I n t h i s p r o d u c t l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n , R o n a l d J

. C a m p b e l l

, J r

. , a n e m p l o y e e o f

G e o r g i a P o w e r C o m p a n y ( “ G e o r g i a P o w e r ” )

, s e e k s d a m a g e s f o r t h e i n j u r i e s h e

r e c e i v e d w h i l e o p e r a t i n g a n A 7 7

- T b u c k e t t r u c k o n J u n e 3 0

, 2 0 0 6

. C a m p b e l l ’ s 1

i n j u r i e s o c c u r r e d w h e n t h e b u c k e t t r u c k ’ s l o w e r b o o m l i f t c y l i n d e r f

a i l e d a n d

c a u s e d t h e u p p e r a n d l o w e r b o o m s t o d r o p , s e n d i n g t h e b u c k e t t o t h e g r o u n d

. T h e

b u c k e t t r u c k w a s m a n u f a c t u r e d a n d s o l d t o G e o r g i a P o w e r b y A l t e c I n d u s t r i e s , I n c

.

( “ A l t e c ” )

. T h e d e f

e c t i v e c o m p o n e n t

— t h e l i f t c y l i n d e r

— w a s m a n u f

a c t u r e d b y

T e x a s H y d r a u l i c s , I n c

. ( “ T H I ” ) a n d d e v e l o p e d j o i n t l y b y T H I a n d A l t e c f o r u s e i n

t h e b u c k e t t r u c k

. T h e l i f t c y l i n d e r w a s f

i r s t t e s t e d o n J a n u a r y 1 4

, 1 9 9 8 ; i t w a s

i n s t a l l e d o n t h e b u c k e t t r u c k i n M a r c h 1 9 9 8

. T h e c o m p l e t e d b u c k e t t r u c k

, w i t h t h e

l i f t c y l i n d e r i n p l a c e , w a s d e l i v e r e d t o G e o r g i a P o w e r i n A p r i l 1 9 9 8

.

Honora ble David M. Ebe l, United States Circuit J udg e for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by * desig nation.

Campbell’s wife a

nd coplaintiff, Kr istie Campbell, seeks damag es for loss of 1
consortium.

2C a m p b e l l a n d h i s w i f e b r o u g h t t h i s p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n a g a i n s t A l t e c

a n d T H I o n F e b r u a r y 4

, 2 0 0 8

, p u r s u a n t t o O

. C

. G

. A

. § 5 1

- 1

- 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 )

, w h i c h

“ p r o v i d e s a c a u s e o f a c t i o n i n t o r t f o r a p e r s o n i n

j u r e d b y p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a g a i n s t

t h e p r o p e r t y ’ s m a n u f

a c t u r e r i f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h t h e p r o p e r t y w a s s o l d i s t h e

p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d

. ” A l t e c a n d T H I j o i n t l y m o v e d f o r 2

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t b a s e d o n t h e s t a t u t e o f r e p o s e , § 5 1

- 1

- 1 1 ( b ) ( 2 )

, t h a t c r e a t e s a

t i m e l i m i t f

o r b r i n g i n g a § 5 1

- 1

- 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) c a u s e o f a c t i o n

. S p e c i f i c a l l y , § 5 1

- 1

-

1 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e c l a i m b e b r o u g h t w i t h i n “ t e n y e a r s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e

f i r s t s a l e f o r u s e o r c o n s u m p t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y c a u s i n g o r o t h e r w i s e

b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e i n

j u r y

. ”

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, f i n d i n g t h e 3

C a m p b e l l s ’ c l a i m u n t i m e l y u n d e r t h e s t a t u t e o f r e p o s e

. T h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e

s t a t u t e ’ s t e n

- y e a r t i m e l i m i t b e g a n t o r u n o n J a n u a r y 1 4

, 1 9 9 8

— t h e d a t e o n w h i c h

A l t e c f i r s t t e s t e d t h e l i f

t c y l i n d e r

. B e c a u s e t h a t d a t e w a s m o r e t h a n t e n y e a r s

The Campbells additionally asser ted a f ailure to wa

rn cla im ag ainst Altec a

nd THI

. 2

After the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt on the Campbells’ product liability claims, the Campbells moved the district cour t to withdraw their r emaining failure to warn c laim under
Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 15(a )(2) , which per mits a party

to “amend its plea ding only with the opposing party ’s written c onsent or the c ourt' s leave .” The district court g rante d their Rule 15 motion, an action that we a lrea dy have c oncluded wa s the proper way to dismi ss the claim, see Campbe ll v. Altec I ndus., I nc., 605 F .3d 839, 841 n.1 (11th Cir. 2010).

Our pre vious opinion i n this case incor rec tly states that the district cour t gr anted 3 “Campbell’s motion [for summary judgme nt] .” 605 F .3d at 841. The district c ourt g rante d
Altec a nd THI ’s motion for summary judgme nt.

3b e f

o r e t h e C a m p b e l l s f

i l e d t h i s l a w s u i t

, t h e i r s u i t w a s t i m e b a r r e d

.

T h e C a m p b e l l s a p p e a l e d

. B e c a u s e G e o r g i a l a w l a c k e d c l e a r c o n t r o l l i n g

p r e c e d e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e s t a t u t e o f r e p o s e s h o u l d b e g i n t o

r u n

— i

. e

. , t h e d a t e i n a p r o d u c t ’ s l i f e

- c y c l e t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e “ d a t e o f f i r s t s a l e f o r

u s e o r c o n s u m p t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y c a u s i n g o r o t h e r w i s e b r i n g i n g a b o u t

t h e i n j u r y ”

— w e c e r t i f

i e d t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f G e o r g i a

. 4

I N A S T R I C T L I A B I L I T Y O R N E G L I G E N C E A C T I O N

, D O E S

T H E S T A T U T E O F R E P O S E I N O

. C

. G

. A

. § 5 1

- 1

- 1 1 B E G I N

R U N N I N G W H E N ( 1 ) A C O M P O N E N T P A R T C A U S I N G A N

I N J U R Y I S A S S E M B L E D O R T E S T E D

, ( 2 ) A F I N I S H E D

P R O D U C T

, W H I C H I N C L U D E S A N I N J U R I N G C O M P O N E N T

P A R T

, I S A S S E M B L E D

, O R ( 3 ) A F I N I S H E D P R O D U C T

, W H I C H

I N C L U D E S A N I N J U R I N G C O M P O N E N T P A R T

, I S D E L I V E R E D

T O I T S I N I T I A L P U R C H A S E R ? 5

T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s a n s w e r e d o u r q u e s t i o n

. S e e g e n e r a l l y C a m p b e l l v

.

A l t e c I n d u s

. , I n c

. , N o

. S 1 0 Q 1 3 7 9

,

_ _ _ S

. E

. 2 d

_ _ _ _ , 2 0 1 1 W L 3 5 6 1 1 0 ( G a

. F e b

. 7

,

2 0 1 1 )

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r u l e d t h a t “ t h e s t a t u t e o f r e p o s e f o u n d i n O

. C

. G

. A

.

§ 5 1

- 1

- 1 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) b e g i n s t o r u n w h e n a f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t i s s o l d a s n e w t o t h e

We cer tified the question bec ause the issue of the da te on which the sta tute of re pose 4 beg an to run is deter

minative of this appea l. This is because thr ee dates potentially could have
constituted the “da te of fir st sale for use or consumption” of the lift cy linder that ca used Campbell’s injury : (1) the da te used by the district court, whic h was the da te on which Altec tested the lift cy linder (January 14, 1998); (2) the date of the lift cy linder’s installation in the
bucket truc k (Mar ch 1998); or ( 3) the da te of initial delivery of the buc ket truck to Ge org ia Power, the ultimate purc haser (April 1998). I f the statute of repose beg an to run on e ither of the
latter two da tes, the Campbells’ § 51-1- 11(b)( 1) ca use of a ction would not be time barr ed.

605 F.3d a t 842. 5

4i n t e n d e d c o n s u m e r w h o i s t o r e c e i v e t h e p r o d u c t

, i n t h i s c a s e , G e o r g i a P o w e r

C o m p a n y

. ” I d

. a t

_ _ _ _ , 2 0 1 1 W L 3 5 6 1 1 0

, a t * 3

– 4 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. 6

I n l i g h t o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s a n s w e r , t h e t e n

- y e a r l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d o f t h e

s t a t u t e o f r e p o s e d i d n o t b e g i n t o r u n o n t h e C a m p b e l l s ’ § 5 1

- 1

- 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) c a u s e o f

a c t i o n u n t i l A p r i l 1 9 9 8

, w h e n t h e b u c k e t t r u c k w a s d e l i v e r e d t o G e o r g i a P o w e r

.

T h e l a w s u i t w a s t i m e l y f i l e d

, a n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t i t w a s n o t

.

W e t h e r e f

o r e V A C A T E t h e c o u r t ’ s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a n d R E M A N D t h e c a s e f o r

f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

.

V A C A T E D a n d R E M A N D E D

.

I n so ruling, the Supreme Court found to be e rror statements to the contra

ry made 6
within J ohnson v. Ford Motor Co., 637 S.E.2d 202, 206 (Ga . Ct. App. 2006), an opinion in
which the Ge org ia Court of Appe als held that the re fer ence date unde r the statute of repose was the date in whic h a compone nt part wa s installed in an automobile, not the date in which the automobile was sold. See Campbe ll v. Altec I ndus., I nc., No. S10Q1379, ___ S.E.2d ____,
2011 WL 356110, at *3 (Ga . Fe b. 7, 2011).

5