Nickolas Seekins v. CHEP USA, 20 F.4th 345

Dollar General owned and maintained rider pallet jacks (“stow jacks”) at its Marion, Indiana distribution center and permitted Capstone and CHEP employees to use them on a first-come, first-served basis; Dollar General handled maintenance and red-tagging.
Capstone employed Seekins, trained him on stow-jack operation, and required a 12-point pre-use inspection; CHEP was a separate contractor with no direct contractual relationship with Capstone.
On May 16, 2017 Seekins claimed stow jack SJ4, experienced a prior ‘‘jump’’ but did not report it, and later SJ4 failed to slow; Seekins jumped off, his left foot was crushed and later amputated.
Seekins sued CHEP for negligence in Indiana state court; CHEP removed to federal court; both parties moved for summary judgment; district court granted judgment for CHEP limited to the duty element.
Seekins argued on appeal that CHEP owed a duty as a supplier under Restatement (Second) of Torts §388 (per Dutchmen); CHEP argued it was not a supplier because Dollar General owned, controlled, and maintained SJ4.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: CHEP was not a "supplier" under §388, owed no duty to Seekins under Indiana law, and certification to the Indiana Supreme Court was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CHEP owed a duty to Seekins as a supplier of a dangerous chattel under Restatement §388	Seekins: CHEP should be treated as a supplier under Dutchmen/§388 and thus owed a duty to warn/inspect because CHEP employees used the shared stow jack and failed to remove it from service	CHEP: It was not a supplier; Dollar General owned, controlled, and maintained SJ4; no sale, lease, loan, bailment, or repair relationship with CHEP	Court: CHEP was not a §388 supplier, therefore owed no duty under Indiana negligence law; summary judgment for CHEP affirmed; certification denied

Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 849 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. 2006) (applied Restatement §388 to supplier liability)
McGlothlin v. M & U Trucking, Inc., 688 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. 1997) (Indiana adopted Restatement §§388 and 392 for dangerous-chattel supplier duties)
Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (holding that absence of duty defeats negligence recovery)
Doermer v. Callen, 847 F.3d 522 (7th Cir. 2017) (in diversity cases, federal courts predict how Indiana Supreme Court would decide state-law questions)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pate, 275 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2001) (standards for certifying questions to a state supreme court)