Satcher v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________
No. 91-7138
________________
JAMES C. SATCHER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., And
Its Wholly Owned Subsidiaries,
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,
AND HONDA R & D CO., LTD.,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
_________________________________________________________________
(May 28, 1993)
(Opinion January 25, 5th Cir., 1993 F.2d )
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING & SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before JOLLY and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges, and PARKER*, District Judge.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
The original opinion in this matter was issued by the panel on
January 25, 1993. A petition for panel rehearing and a petition
for rehearing en banc are currently pending before the court. The
petition for en banc rehearing is DENIED, no judge in active
service having requested that the court be polled. The petition
for panel rehearing is GRANTED. In view of recent developments in
*
Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
the law governing products liability in Mississippi, we now VACATE
our original opinion and REMAND the case to the district court for
further consideration in the light of these developments.
On March 5, 1993, the Mississippi state legislature enacted
House Bill 1270, codifying various elements of Mississippi common
law regarding products liability. On March 25, 1993, the
Mississippi Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sperry-New Holland
v. Prestage, No. 90-CA-0657, 1993 Miss. LEXIS 124, holding that,
contrary to prior Fifth Circuit opinions and this panel's opinion
in the instant case, Mississippi applies a "risk-utility" analysis
in products liability cases and has done so since 1987. These
events, occurring subsequent to the panel opinion in this case but
while petitions for rehearing were pending before the court, have
the potential to alter drastically Mississippi's products liability
law.
The appellants argue, in response to the petition for
rehearing, that Sperry-New Holland should not be applied to this
case because doing so would result in manifest injustice to the
parties, that the risk-utility standard does not preclude summary
judgment in this case, and that House Bill 1270 codifies
Mississippi law as it existed pre-Sperry-New Holland and changes
procedures relative to punitive damage awards. The district court,
with its extensive knowledge of the facts and proceedings in this
case, is in a far better position than are we to address and to
first apply these new arguments, and to apply the newly developed
-2-
law to the facts of this case. Thus, we vacate our original
opinion and remand this case to the district court for further
consideration.
Petition for panel rehearing GRANTED;
opinion VACATED; and case REMANDED.
-3-