Daryl Smith v. Quartet Sales, Inc. ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                        United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-4329
    ___________
    Darryl Smith,                              *
    *
    Appellant,                    *
    *
    v.                                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Quartet Sales, Inc.,                       * Eastern District of Missouri.
    *
    Appellee.                     *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    ___________
    Submitted: August 11, 2000
    Filed: August 31, 2000
    ___________
    Before MCMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
    Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Darryl Smith appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
    in his products liability case. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs,
    we conclude the judgment was proper. See Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., 
    173 F.3d 1076
    , 1085 (8th Cir. 1999) (describing summary judgment standard of review); Bass
    v. General Motors Corp., 
    150 F.3d 842
    , 847 (8th Cir. 1998) (enumerating proof
    required for defective-design strict liability claim under Missouri law); Thudium v.
    1
    The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    Allied Prods. Corp., 
    36 F.3d 767
    , 769 (8th Cir. 1994) (concluding that circumstantial
    evidence may be used in products liability case, but “plaintiff must prove his claim
    without resort to conjecture or speculation and must demonstrate circumstances which
    point reasonably to the desired conclusion and exclude any other reasonable
    conclusion”); Dorman v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 
    992 S.W.2d 231
    , 239 (Mo. Ct.
    App. 1999) (describing standard for negligence liability); Brissette v. Milner Chevrolet
    Co., 
    479 S.W.2d 176
    , 181-82 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972) (concluding physical presence of
    defective object is not essential to claim; plaintiff may present testimony, subject to
    cross-examination, that indicates existing defects).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-