Coy Lyons v. Potlatch Corp., No. 04-4189 (8th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Civil case - Torts. Defendant's summary judgment on plaintiff's personal injury claim affirmed without comment.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 04-4189 ___________ Coy Stephen Lyons, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Davison Transport, Inc., * * Appeal from the United States Intervenor-Plaintiff, * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] Potlatch Corporation, * * Defendant-Appellee. * * ___________ Submitted: October 14, 2005 Filed: March 6, 2006 ___________ Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Coy Stephen Lyons, a tanker-truck driver for Davison Transport, Inc., appeals the district court's1 grant of summary judgment to Potlatch Corporation (Potlatch) in 1 The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c). Lyons' diversity suit against Potlatch for negligence under Arkansas law. The district court held that Potlatch owed Lyons, a business invitee, a duty to use ordinary care to maintain its Cypress Bend mill facilities in a reasonably safe condition while Lyons unloaded sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) at the mill in September of 1996. The court found that Potlatch did not violate that duty. The court also found that Potlatch did not exercise control over the NaHS unloading process, rendering inapplicable a duty under Arkansas law to exercise reasonable care in exercising such control. See Elkins v. Arkla, Inc., 849 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Ark. 1993). We agree with both conclusions. We have carefully considered Lyons' arguments to the contrary. Upon de novo review, Liszewski v. Target Corp., 374 F.3d 597, 599 (8th Cir. 2004), we find no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment and affirm on the basis of its wellreasoned memorandum order, see 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.