F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 4 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
KRIS WELLBORN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-8106
(D.C. No. 95-CV-211-J)
COBRAY FIREARMS INC., a (D. Wyo.)
Georgia corporation, S W DANIEL,
INC., a Georgia corporation; SYLVIA
DANIEL; MARIETTA PLASTICS
INC., a Georgia corporation;
MOUNTAIN ACCESSORIES
CORPORATION, aka MAC, Inc., a
Tennessee corporation; DICK
LOFFER, individually,
Defendants,
and
WAYNE DANIEL, individually,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Wayne Daniel appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment adjudging him personally liable for the torts of his corporation as a
matter of law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
§ 1331(a)(1) and affirm.
On August 31, 1994, plaintiff Kris Wellborn set off a self-loaded shell in a
flare launcher he purchased from Mountain Accessories Corporation (MAC), a
corporation in which defendant is the sole shareholder and president. The shell
(from a “load your own” shell kit) exploded in the flare launcher and, among his
other injuries, plaintiff’s right hand was amputated.
Plaintiff initiated this action on theories of negligence, strict liability, and
breach of express and implied warranties. His complaint named various
corporations involved in the manufacture and design of the flare launcher and
shell kit, including MAC. In addition, plaintiff’s complaint named as individuals
defendant, Sylvia Daniel, and Dick Loffer, a MAC employee. Shortly before
trial, the district court dismissed on summary judgment defendant and Sylvia
-2-
Daniel. The district court dismissed defendant based on plaintiff’s failure to
bring forth evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact material to defendant’s
personal liability for MAC’s actions. In doing so, the district court noted
defendant’s affidavit statements that: he never “personally” designed,
manufactured, fabricated, packaged, prepared, sold, or distributed flare launchers
or flare canisters; he never “personally” had contact with plaintiff; and he never
instructed plaintiff on the use of flare launchers or flare canisters. Appellant’s
App. at 9. The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff
against MAC, the sole remaining corporation (plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
other defendant corporations), finding that MAC was negligent, breached its
implied warranty, and was strictly liable for design defect. The jury awarded
plaintiff $200,000 in damages, plus costs but no punitive damages, finding MAC
90% negligent, plaintiff 10% negligent, and Mr. Loffer not negligent at all.
Under Wyoming’s comparative fault statute, plaintiff’s damages were
correspondingly decreased to $180,000. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109.
Plaintiff appealed to this court. As relevant here, this court reversed
defendant’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. See
Wellborn v. Cobray Firearms, Inc. , No. 96-8120, 1998 WL 80236 (10th Cir.
Feb. 25, 1998) (unpublished). This court cited Zimmerman v. First Federal
Savings & Loan Ass’n , 848 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1988), for the principle that
-3-
because “the corporate veil doctrine does not apply to a tort claim brought by a
third party against a corporation’s directors, officers, or shareholders, the
traditional notion of a shield for acts committed in a corporate capacity does not
apply either.” 1998 WL 80236, at *3. Based on defendant’s deposition testimony
admitting to “fabricating, designing, manufacturing, packaging, and selling the
flare launcher” and “writing the instruction which accompanied the ‘load your
own’ shell kit,” this court found sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of
material fact regarding his potential liability under Zimmerman . Id. at *4. In
addition, this court noted defendant’s statement that “‘I sold the launcher. When
I say ‘I,’ I mean, MAC.’” Id.
On remand, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, propounding the
principles of respondeat superior, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and stare
decisis. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion, finding that, for purposes of
collateral estoppel, defendant “was in privity with MAC . . . for the issues of
product liability, negligence, damages and comparative fault” and that he had a
“full and fair opportunity in the previous trial to litigate” these issues.
Appellant’s App. at 48. The district court found that collateral estoppel did not
apply to defendant’s personal liability since that issue was not litigated at the
trial. It concluded, however, that plaintiff was entitled to judgment based on
summary judgment principles. Essentially, the district court found that, under
-4-
Zimmerman , defendant “actively participated in and directed the omissions and
commissions that led to liability for the company he owns, directs and controls”
and he failed to submit materials in opposition that raised an issue of fact to the
contrary. Appellant’s App. at 52.
On appeal, defendant contends the district court erred in granting summary
judgment because: (1) a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning his
liability; (2) a jury was never instructed under Zimmerman ; (3) no new evidence
was brought forth at trial to supplement the genuine issue of fact regarding
defendant’s liability under strict liability and breach of warranty; (4) a genuine
issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant directed or participated in a
wrongful act or omission which injured or prejudiced plaintiff; and (5) the jury
must consider the issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and
apply the principles set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Kaul v. Stephan ,
83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is appropriate on a
record demonstrating that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “‘We view the evidence and draw any inferences in a light
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, but that party must
identify sufficient evidence which would require submission of the case to a
-5-
jury.’” Aramburu v. Boeing Co. , 112 F.3d 1398, 1402 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Williams v. Rice , 983 F.2d 177, 179 (10th Cir. 1993)).
We have reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district court’s order, the
record, and the relevant legal principles and case law. We have nothing to add to
the district court’s analysis of the law and the evidence before it. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for substantially the
reasons stated in the district court’s thorough memorandum and order of
October 20, 1998.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming is AFFIRMED .
Entered for the Court
James E. Barrett
Senior Circuit Judge
-6-