Edward Burdett v. Remington Arms Company, L.L.C.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6745
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Edward Burdett was shot in the foot when his Remington Model 700 rifle discharged during a 2015 hunting trip; he purchased the rifle by 1998 from a Georgia reseller.
- Burdett sued Remington Arms Co., LLC (later Sporting Goods Properties, Inc.) in the Northern District of Texas asserting five products-liability claims (one under Georgia statute) and a Texas DTPA claim.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Texas’s 15-year products-liability statute of repose (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.012(b)) barred the suit because the rifle was sold no later than 1998 and the suit was filed in 2015.
- Burdett argued New York law should apply (no statute of repose) and that Texas’s § 71.031 is not a choice-of-law rule or does not apply in federal court.
- The district court applied § 71.031, held Texas law (including the 15-year repose) governed, found the suit time-barred, and granted summary judgment for defendants; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.031 is a choice-of-law provision | § 71.031 is not a codified choice-of-law rule applicable to determine governing law | § 71.031 is a codified choice-of-law/borrowing statute that governs timeliness | § 71.031 is a codified choice-of-law provision (court bound by Hyde and Owens Corning) |
| Whether § 71.031 applies in federal court | § 71.031’s language is aimed at state courts and should not apply in federal diversity cases | § 71.031 applies in federal court; federal courts must follow Texas choice-of-law rules | § 71.031 applies in federal court (Hyde controls) |
| Whether Texas’s 15-year statute of repose bars Burdett’s claims | New York law should apply (no repose) so claims are timely | Texas law applies and the 15-year repose began at first sale (no later than 1998) | Claims are time-barred under Texas’s 15-year repose; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff’s residency (TX vs GA) changes result | If Georgia resident, New York law also applies and may avoid repose | Regardless of residency, § 71.031(a)(2) requires suit comply with Texas time limits | Residency does not change outcome: under § 71.031(a)(2) suit was untimely in any event |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyde v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 511 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 2007) (applied § 71.031 as Texas codified choice-of-law rule in federal diversity case)
- Owens Corning v. Carter, 997 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. 1999) (characterized § 71.031 borrowing provisions as a codified choice-of-law rule governing timeliness)
- Barfield v. Madison Cty., 212 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2000) (federal courts must follow state highest-court interpretations when state law supplies rules of decision)