Barbara Durkee v. GEOLOGIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; XRS CORPORATION, d/b/a Xata Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1360
BARBARA DURKEE; CAMELIA BUCHANAN; MICHAEL EARL DURKEE;
JACKIE NEWTON, Guardian ad Litem on behalf of C.D.; BARNEY
DURKEE; KENNETH BUCHANAN; SHIRLIE BUCHANAN, Guardian ad
Litem on behalf of D.B.; MARGIE GAIL DURKEE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
GEOLOGIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; XRS CORPORATION, d/b/a Xata
Corporation,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DOMTAR CORPORATION; DOMTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOMTAR PAPER
COMPANY, LLC; DOMTAR, INC.; PEOPLEASE CORPORATION;
CORETRANS, LLC; N&W HOLDINGS, LLC; CH ROBINSON WORLDWIDE,
INC.; CH ROBINSON COMPANY,
Defendants.
No. 12-1465
JOSHUA BAILEY, individually and as co-executor of the
Estate of Haiden William Bailey; AMANDA BAILEY,
individually and as co-executrix of the Estate of Haiden
William Bailey,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
GEOLOGIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; XRS CORPORATION, d/b/a Xata
Corporation,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CARROLL JETT, Estate of; CORETRANS, LLC; MARLBORO WAREHOUSE
COMPANY; MARLBORO MILL; DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY, LLC; DOMTAR
INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOMTAR, INC.; DOMTAR CORPORATION;
PEOPLEASE CORPORATION; N&W HOLDINGS, LLC; C.H. ROBINSON
WORLDWIDE, INC.; C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00449-MR-DLH; 1:10-cv-00144-MR-DLH)
Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: January 2, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steve R. Warren, LONG, PARKER, WARREN, ANDERSON & PAYNE, P.A.,
Asheville, North Carolina; James E. Ferguson, II, Lareena Jones-
Phillips, FERGUSON, STEIN, CHAMBERS, GRESHAM & SUMTER, PA,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Eugene Ellison, EUGENE ELLISON LAW
OFFICE, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellants. Brady J.
Fulton, NORTHUP, MCCONNELL & SIZEMORE, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Appellants appeal the
district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the
magistrate judge, granting the motions to dismiss filed by Xata
Corporation (“Xata”), and dismissing their product liability
claims. We affirm.
Appellants’ product liability claims arose from a
motor vehicle accident on Interstate 40 in North Carolina.
Carroll Jett drove a fully loaded tractor-trailer into vehicles
that were slowed or stopped in front of him, causing injuries to
the Durkees and resulting in the death of the Baileys’ child.
Appellants alleged that Jett became distracted by the presence
of a texting system located in the cab of his truck. The
texting system had been manufactured by a subsidiary of Xata.
Appellants contended that Xata owed them a legal duty
of care because injuries to the traveling public were reasonably
foreseeable based on the texting system’s design that (1)
required the driver to divert his eyes from the road to view an
incoming text from the dispatcher, and (2) permitted the receipt
of texts while the vehicle was moving. The district court
granted Xata’s motions to dismiss,1 concluding that the accident
1 The Durkees and the Baileys mediated their claims with the
remaining defendants and ultimately filed a stipulation of
(Continued)

-- 3 of 5 --

4
was caused by the driver’s inattention, not the texting device
itself, and that manufacturers are not required to design a
product incapable of distracting a driver.2
On appeal, Appellants challenge the district court’s
conclusion that Xata owed them no duty of care. Our de novo
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court properly dismissed Appellants’ claims. See Robinson v.
Am. Honda Motor Co., 551 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2009)
(discussing standard of review); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-
6(a) (2011) (providing elements to prove inadequate product
design); Smith v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., 278 F. Supp. 2d 684,
706 (W.D.N.C. 2003) (providing elements of product liability
action based upon negligence); Kientz v. Carlton, 96 S.E.2d 14,
18 (N.C. 1957) (holding that duty owed by product manufacturer
“does not require him to guard against hazards apparent to the
casual observer or to protect against injuries resulting from
dismissal, that preserved their right to appeal the dismissal of
Xata.
2 Appellants complain on appeal that the magistrate judge
mischaracterized Jett’s conduct as “misuse” of the texting
system. However, it is apparent from the magistrate judge’s
recommendations and the district court’s opinions that the term
“misuse” was intended to indicate improper or careless use of
the system by the driver, rather than a use that was unintended
by the manufacturer.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
the user’s own patently careless and improvident conduct”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Appellants also argue that the district court failed
to accept the allegations contained in the complaints as true.
We conclude that the district court properly construed the facts
in Appellants’ favor. The court, however, was not required to
accept as correct the complaints’ legal conclusions. Robinson,
551 F.3d at 222.
We therefore affirm the judgments of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --