Court Opinion

ID: 9714801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:46:02.728388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:28.745168
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur as to Issue I.
With respect to Issue II, I am able to concur only in result. My principal area of disagreement with the majority opinion concerns the analysis of Wilson v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc. (S.D.Ind.1983), 582 F.Supp. 383. In the Wilson case it was *1387the turbine component which caused the injury. Therefore, delivery of that component was the appropriate focus with respect to the trigger date under the ten year statute of limitations. In the case before us, however, the ladder as a component did not cause injury except as affixed to the 46-foot high storage bin. It, therefore, appears more reasonable to conclude that the trigger date in the case before us was the date when the components were put together and "delivered" to the initial consumer 1, Kern, who also happens to be the "ultimate" consumer of the individual components.
For the above stated reasons, I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.

. I use the word "initial" to denote the first consumer following assembly of the components.