Case Name: Coy Stephen LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Davison Transport, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. POTLATCH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-06
Citations: 172 F. App'x 127
Docket Number: No. 04-4189
Parties: Coy Stephen LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Davison Transport, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. POTLATCH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 127–127

Head Matter:
Coy Stephen LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Davison Transport, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. POTLATCH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-4189.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2005.
Filed March 6, 2006.
Paul Edward Harrison, James Bruce McMath, McMath & Woods, Little Rock, AR, Bill R. Holloway, McGehee, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Philip S. Anderson, Jess Askew, III, Beth M. Deere, Clayborne S. Stone, Williams & Anderson, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Coy Stephen Lyons, a tanker-truck driver for Davison Transport, Inc., appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Potlatch Corporation (Potlatch) in 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., 312 Ark. 280, 849 S.W.2d 489, 490 (1993). We agree with both conclusions.
We have carefully considered Lyons' arguments to the contrary. Upon de novo review, Liszewski v. Target Carp., 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 well-reasoned memorandum order, see 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. 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).