Martin v. Julius Dierck Equipment Co., 43 N.Y.2d 583 (1978)
For the purpose of New York’s borrowing statute, a cause of action in negligence or strict products liability accrues where the injury occurred, not where the defective product was manufactured or delivered.
Summary
Martin, a District of Columbia resident, was injured in Virginia while operating a forklift manufactured by Raymond and distributed by Dierck, both New York corporations. He sued in New York, alleging negligence and breach of warranty. The defendants argued that Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations barred the suit under New York’s borrowing statute. The court held that the causes of action accrued in Virginia, where the injury occurred, and were thus time-barred. The court reasoned that strict products liability actions sound in tort, not contract, and the cause of action accrues where the plaintiff is injured. This case clarifies the application of New York’s borrowing statute in the context of product liability claims involving non-resident plaintiffs.
Facts
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, was injured in Arlington, Virginia, while operating a forklift at his employer’s warehouse on June 7, 1968.
The forklift was manufactured by defendant Raymond, a New York corporation, and sold to Western Electric on June 26, 1967, “f.o.b. Greene, New York” through defendant Dierck, a distributor based in New York City.
Plaintiff initiated an action against both defendants in New York, alleging negligence and breach of warranty, in 1971.
Procedural History
The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations applied under New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) and barred the action.
Special Term held that the negligence cause of action accrued in Virginia, but the breach of warranty cause of action accrued in New York, finding the borrowing statute inapplicable to the latter.
Special Term denied the motion for summary judgment, finding a factual issue as to whether the Virginia statute of limitations was tolled.
The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants, holding that both the negligence and breach of warranty causes of action accrued in Virginia.
Issue(s)
Whether, for the purposes of New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202), the plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and “breach of warranty” (i.e., strict products liability) accrued in Virginia, where the injury occurred, or in New York, where the forklift was manufactured and delivered.
Holding
Yes, because for purposes of the borrowing statute, the negligence and strict products liability causes of action accrued in Virginia, the place of injury, and are therefore barred by Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations.
Court’s Reasoning
The court characterized the plaintiff’s claim labeled