## Facts

- Graciela Gonzalez, a Georgia resident, was killed on February 27, 1991, while working at a chicken-processing plant in Gainesville, Georgia, when struck by a moving part of an industrial shaker machine.
- The machine was a 48-inch “Kason Vibroscreen” shaker manufactured more than thirteen years before the accident by Kason Corporation, a New Jersey corporation headquartered in Linden, New Jersey.
- For summary-judgment purposes, the machine was assumed to have been manufactured in New Jersey.
- The estate administrator filed survivorship and wrongful-death products-liability claims in New Jersey against Kason, alleging defective design and/or manufacture.
- The suit was filed within New Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations but would be barred by Georgia’s ten-year products-liability statute of repose measured from when the product left the manufacturer’s control.

## Issues

1. Under New Jersey’s governmental-interest choice-of-law analysis, should a New Jersey court apply New Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations or Georgia’s ten-year statute of repose to a Georgia plaintiff’s products-liability claims against a New Jersey manufacturer for an injury occurring in Georgia?
2. Do Georgia’s repose policies create a governmental interest sufficient to displace New Jersey’s interest in regulating and deterring unsafe manufacturing by New Jersey corporations?

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for Kason and remanded.
- The court held that New Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations governs, and the action was timely.
- Although both states had interests, New Jersey’s interest in deterring the manufacture and distribution of unsafe products by in-state manufacturers outweighed Georgia’s interest in providing repose to manufacturers.

## Legal Principles

- New Jersey applies a governmental-interest choice-of-law test: (1) determine whether an actual conflict exists; (2) identify each state’s governmental policies and evaluate how the parties’ and litigation contacts affect those policies.
- A statute of repose can extinguish a cause of action based on the passage of time from the defendant’s conduct, regardless of accrual; its operation is assessed through interest analysis rather than a rigid procedural/substantive label.
- New Jersey has a substantial interest in regulating and deterring unsafe conduct by manufacturers domiciled and operating in New Jersey, including when out-of-state plaintiffs are injured elsewhere by products manufactured in New Jersey.
- Georgia’s interest in limiting long-tail products-liability exposure through repose is weaker when the defendant is not a Georgia manufacturer and is sued in its home forum.
- Comity does not require a New Jersey forum to apply another state’s repose law when doing so would significantly impair New Jersey’s own regulatory and deterrence policies.

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that New Jersey’s statute of limitations, not Georgia’s statute of repose, applies to products-liability claims brought in New Jersey against a New Jersey manufacturer, because applying Georgia’s repose bar would materially undermine New Jersey’s deterrence and regulatory interests in in-state manufacturing conduct.


Gantes v. Kason Corp., 145 N.J. 478, 679 A.2d 106 (1996)