Apex Oil Company, Inc. v. Jones Stephens Corp., No. 16-3684 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing several products liability claims brought against Jones Stephens Corporation by Apex Oil. Applying Arkansas law to this dispute, the court held that the district court properly dismissed the strict liability claim where Apex did not present sufficient evidence that Jones Stephens's product was unreasonably dangerous; the district court properly dismissed the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims where Apex did not present evidence showing a causal connection between voids created by the manufacturing process and a structural failure of the parts; and the district court properly dismissed Apex's claim that Jones Stephens acted deceptively and unconscionably by advertising a "Leak proof seal" on the label of the plastic coupling nut where there was insufficient evidence that Apex's water damage was a result of the alleged deceptive trade practice.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Products liability. Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the toilet supply line manufactured by defendant was unreasonably dangerous under Arkansas law, and the court properly dismissed plaintiff's strict liability claim; with respect to plaintiff's general negligence theory, plaintiff failed to present evidence that at the time in question defendant should have know that there was a link between voids in a plastic coupling nut and structural failure of the part; there was insufficient evidence that the damage plaintiff incurred was the result of defendant's alleged deceptive trade practice in labeling the part as "leak proof" as plaintiff failed to show it knew about the label before the incident or that it relied upon the label in taking some action that caused the damage; 2017 amendment to an Arkansas statute - Ark. Code Ann. Section 4-88-113(f)(1)(A) (2017) - did not change the result.
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.