Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantliabilitystatutesummary judgmentworkers' compensationstatute of limitationssustained
lawsuitplaintiffdefendantliabilitystatuteappealsummary judgmentsustained

Related Cases

DeLoach v. Alfred, 192 Ariz. 28, 960 P.2d 628, 271 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3
View Case »
In re Paris Air Crash of March 3, 1974, 69 F.R.D. 310
View Case »
My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 353 Mass. 614, 233 N.E.2d 748
View Case »
Goldey v. Morning News of New Haven, 156 U.S. 518, 15 S.Ct. 559, 39 L.Ed. 517
View Case »
Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tanges v. Heidelberg North America, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 48, 710 N.E.2d 250, 687 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 02633

Facts

In November 1983, Danbury Printing and Litho, Inc. purchased a printing press manufactured by Heidelberg and installed it in its Danbury, Connecticut plant. Ten years and three months later, Tanges, a New York resident employed by Danbury Printing, sustained serious injuries while operating the press and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Tanges subsequently initiated a products liability action against the defendants in federal court, with Danbury Printing intervening to recover its workers' compensation payments. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Tanges's complaint was time-barred by Connecticut General Statutes § 52–577a.

In November 1983, Danbury Printing and Litho, Inc. bought a printing press manufactured by defendants Heidelberg et al. and installed that press in its Danbury, Connecticut plant. Ten years and three months later, plaintiff Tanges, a New York resident employed by Danbury Printing, sustained serious injuries while operating the press.

Issue

Does Connecticut General Statutes § 52–577a bar Tanges's claim brought in the Southern District of New York?

This Court is asked, within the boundaries of a certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to answer the question whether Connecticut General Statutes § 52–577a bars plaintiff's products liability lawsuit.

Rule

Under New York's choice of law analysis, Connecticut's products liability statute of limitations, which includes a statute of repose, is considered part of the substantive law of Connecticut.

New York State's choice of law principles point the way to the conclusion that the pertinent Connecticut statute (which incorporates a repose provision into the State's codified products liability law) is a part of that neighboring State's substantive law.

Analysis

The court determined that Connecticut General Statutes § 52–577a is substantive law and applies to Tanges's claim. The statute bars any products liability claim from being brought more than ten years after the defendant last parted with possession or control of the product. Since Tanges's claim was initiated more than ten years after the press left the defendants' control, the court ruled that the claim was time-barred.

The District Court held that, under New York State's choice of law rules, a New York court would apply section 52–577a to this case as a part of the substantive law of Connecticut.

Conclusion

The court answered the certified question in the affirmative, confirming that Connecticut General Statutes § 52–577a bars Tanges's products liability claim.

Our answer is in the affirmative.

Who won?

Heidelberg prevailed in the case because the court upheld the summary judgment ruling that Tanges's claim was barred by the applicable statute of repose.

Defendants answered and moved for summary judgment. They urged dismissal of Tanges's complaint as time-barred by Connecticut General Statutes § 52–577a.

You must be