UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1360

BARBARA DURKEE; CAMELIA BUCHANAN; MICHAEL EARL DURKEE; 

JACKIE NEWTON, Guardian ad Litem on behalf of C.D.; BARNEY 

DURKEE; KENNETH BUCHANAN; SHIRLIE BUCHANAN, Guardian ad 

Litem on behalf of D.B.; MARGIE GAIL DURKEE,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

GEOLOGIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; XRS CORPORATION, d/b/a Xata 

Corporation,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DOMTAR CORPORATION; DOMTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOMTAR PAPER 

COMPANY, LLC; DOMTAR, INC.; PEOPLEASE CORPORATION; 

CORETRANS, LLC; N&W HOLDINGS, LLC; CH ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, 

INC.; CH ROBINSON COMPANY,

Defendants.

No. 12-1465

JOSHUA BAILEY, individually and as co-executor of the 

Estate of Haiden William Bailey; AMANDA BAILEY, 

individually and as co-executrix of the Estate of Haiden 

William Bailey,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.
2

GEOLOGIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; XRS CORPORATION, d/b/a Xata 

Corporation,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CARROLL JETT, Estate of; CORETRANS, LLC; MARLBORO WAREHOUSE 

COMPANY; MARLBORO MILL; DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY, LLC; DOMTAR 

INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOMTAR, INC.; DOMTAR CORPORATION; 

PEOPLEASE CORPORATION; N&W HOLDINGS, LLC; C.H. ROBINSON 

WORLDWIDE, INC.; C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00449-MR-DLH; 1:10-cv-00144-MR-DLH)

Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: January 2, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve R. Warren, LONG, PARKER, WARREN, ANDERSON & PAYNE, P.A., 

Asheville, North Carolina; James E. Ferguson, II, Lareena JonesPhillips, FERGUSON, STEIN, CHAMBERS, GRESHAM & SUMTER, PA, 

Charlotte, North Carolina; Eugene Ellison, EUGENE ELLISON LAW 

OFFICE, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellants. Brady J. 

Fulton, NORTHUP, MCCONNELL & SIZEMORE, Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Appellants appeal the 

district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the 

magistrate judge, granting the motions to dismiss filed by Xata 

Corporation (“Xata”), and dismissing their product liability 

claims. We affirm.

Appellants’ product liability claims arose from a 

motor vehicle accident on Interstate 40 in North Carolina. 

Carroll Jett drove a fully loaded tractor-trailer into vehicles 

that were slowed or stopped in front of him, causing injuries to 

the Durkees and resulting in the death of the Baileys’ child. 

Appellants alleged that Jett became distracted by the presence 

of a texting system located in the cab of his truck. The 

texting system had been manufactured by a subsidiary of Xata. 

Appellants contended that Xata owed them a legal duty 

of care because injuries to the traveling public were reasonably 

foreseeable based on the texting system’s design that (1) 

required the driver to divert his eyes from the road to view an 

incoming text from the dispatcher, and (2) permitted the receipt 

of texts while the vehicle was moving. The district court 

granted Xata’s motions to dismiss,1 concluding that the accident 

 1 The Durkees and the Baileys mediated their claims with the 

remaining defendants and ultimately filed a stipulation of 

(Continued)
4

was caused by the driver’s inattention, not the texting device 

itself, and that manufacturers are not required to design a 

product incapable of distracting a driver.2 

On appeal, Appellants challenge the district court’s 

conclusion that Xata owed them no duty of care. Our de novo 

review of the record leads us to conclude that the district 

court properly dismissed Appellants’ claims. See Robinson v. 

Am. Honda Motor Co., 551 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(discussing standard of review); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B6(a) (2011) (providing elements to prove inadequate product 

design); Smith v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., 278 F. Supp. 2d 684, 

706 (W.D.N.C. 2003) (providing elements of product liability 

action based upon negligence); Kientz v. Carlton, 96 S.E.2d 14, 

18 (N.C. 1957) (holding that duty owed by product manufacturer 

“does not require him to guard against hazards apparent to the 

casual observer or to protect against injuries resulting from 

 

dismissal, that preserved their right to appeal the dismissal of 

Xata.

2 Appellants complain on appeal that the magistrate judge 

mischaracterized Jett’s conduct as “misuse” of the texting 

system. However, it is apparent from the magistrate judge’s 

recommendations and the district court’s opinions that the term 

“misuse” was intended to indicate improper or careless use of 

the system by the driver, rather than a use that was unintended 

by the manufacturer. 
5

the user’s own patently careless and improvident conduct”) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellants also argue that the district court failed 

to accept the allegations contained in the complaints as true. 

We conclude that the district court properly construed the facts 

in Appellants’ favor. The court, however, was not required to 

accept as correct the complaints’ legal conclusions. Robinson, 

551 F.3d at 222.

We therefore affirm the judgments of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED