315 Neb. 892
Neb.2024Background
- John Edward Griffith II purchased two lithium-ion batteries in Nebraska, then was injured in Pennsylvania when they exploded, causing burns.
- The batteries were alleged to be designed by LG Chem (South Korea), distributed by LG Chem America, Inc. (LGCAI, a Delaware corporation), and sold at a Nebraska travel center operated by Shoemaker’s and E-Titan (both Nebraska corporations).
- Plaintiffs (the Griffiths) sued LG Chem, LGCAI, Shoemaker’s, and E-Titan in Nebraska state court for negligence, products liability, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium.
- Claims against LG Chem were dismissed for lack of service; the district court granted summary judgment to Shoemaker's and E-Titan, applying Pennsylvania’s 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury.
- The district court also dismissed LGCAI for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding its contacts with Nebraska insufficient for jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs appealed both the statute of limitations choice and the personal jurisdiction ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska or Pennsylvania statute of limitations applies to Nebraska suit | Nebraska law applies due to purchase in Nebraska and state’s 4-year limit | Pennsylvania law applies as injury and plaintiffs were in Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania statute applied; claims time-barred |
| Whether Nebraska had personal jurisdiction over LGCAI | LGCAI targeted Nebraska by distributing products (including batteries) | LGCAI’s Nebraska contacts were only petrochemical sales, not the batteries at issue | No personal jurisdiction over LGCAI |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (specific jurisdiction requires claims to "arise out of or relate to" defendant’s contacts)
- Wheelbarger v. Detroit Diesel, 313 Neb. 135 (minimum contacts and due process limits for personal jurisdiction)
- O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109 (most significant relationship test for conflicts of law)
- Malena v. Marriott International, 264 Neb. 759 (state interest in tort rules and conflict analysis)
- Johnson v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 269 Neb. 731 (questions of law in conflict-of-law issues without factual dispute)