Case Title: Messer v. B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 20150065

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 2015-08-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA 2015 ND 202Neal and Bonnie
Messer, Plaintiffs and Appellantsv.B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc. and JB's
Welding, Defendants JB's Welding, AppelleeNo. 20150065Appeal
from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable William A. Herauf, Judge.REVERSED
AND REMANDED.Opinion of the Court by VandeWalle, Chief Justice.Randall J. Bakke (argued) and Shawn A. Grinolds (on brief), P.O. Box 460, Bismarck,
ND 58502-0460, for plaintiffs and appellants.Lawrence E. King, P.O. Box 1695, Bismarck, ND
58502-1695, for defendant and appellee JB's Welding.Messer v.
B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc.No.
20150065VandeWalle, Chief Justice.[¶1]
Neal and Bonnie Messer appealed from a district court judgment and order granting defendants
summary judgment and dismissing their claims under theories of strict products liability and
negligence against JB's Welding. We reverse and remand.I[¶2] The Messers owned a building located in close proximity to a building
owned by Steve Forster and Daniel Krebs. An explosion occurred in the Forster/Krebs building
and subsequently damaged the Messers' building. B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc. held a lease on
the west half of the Forster/Krebs building. B&B stored two hot oil trucks inside the
building. The trucks were a 2005 vehicle designed and manufactured by Energy Fabrication, and
a 2009 vehicle referred to as the "knockoff" truck jointly constructed by B&B and JB's
Welding through reverse engineering of an EnerFab vehicle.[¶3]
The deposition testimony was that a hot oil truck holds various chemicals to flush and clean oil
wells and lines, including propane. An investigation into the explosion determined both trucks
were storing propane at the time of the explosion, and the source of the explosion allegedly
started in the B&B leased space. The EnerFab truck's propane levels were found to be near
capacity while the reverse engineered truck's propane levels were significantly lower. The
investigation also indicated that the explosion was a result of a propane leak from the reverse
engineered truck.[¶4] The Messers filed claims against both
B&B and JB as a result of the explosion. The Messers claim JB is liable for damage to their
building under both theories of strict products liability as a manufacturer of the reverse
engineered truck and negligence in construction of the truck. They alleged that the EnerFab
vehicle design includes an electronic failsafe control valve for the propane storage which acts as
a shutoff safety feature in case manual control valves fail to close or leak, and the reverse
engineered truck did not include a failsafe control valve. They further allege JB was responsible
for installation of prefabricated propane lines as well as "fireboxes" or "burner boxes" used to
heat the hot oil contained in the vehicle.[¶5] JB moved for
summary judgment and dismissal of the claims. At the hearing, the Messers presented the
affidavit of an expert witness who stated that an "LP gas system to shut the gas off in the event of
a leak . . . should have been addressed and designed into the system in
conjunction with the firebox assembly." The affidavit further asserted that the failure to install an
electronic failsafe shutoff control valve rendered the truck unreasonably dangerous when it was
accepted by B&B, and JB was negligent in failing to design and manufacture the firebox
assembly with that control valve. Additional depositions asserted B&B was responsible for
the installation of the propane system including safety switches to stop the flow of propane, and
JB did not manufacture, design, or assemble those portions of the truck and had no involvement
in the design or installation of the propane system.[¶6] The
district court granted the motion, concluding under the theory of strict products liability that JB
did not jointly design or manufacture the truck with B&B, was not in the business of selling
hot oil trucks, did not provide the truck to B&B in the same condition in which it was sold
because it was subsequently changed by B&B, and no evidence was presented that the truck
was defective after it left JB's control. The negligence claim was dismissed because JB was
found to have no duty to install an electronic safety shutoff, and its actions were not the
proximate cause of the harm suffered. In its order, the court stated, "[i]t is very important to not
isolate single comments made by any particular deponent and attempt to mischaracterize what is
being said. It is more enlightening to be able to read the pages before and after the comments to
take the items in context." The court found that JB only welded the shell of the truck including
the firebox and propane lines, and had nothing to do with the propane system, valves, or decision
to install automatic shutoffs.II[¶7] "Summary
judgment is a procedural device for the prompt resolution of a controversy on the merits without
a trial if there are no genuine issues of material fact or inferences that can reasonably be drawn
from undisputed facts, or if the only issues to be resolved are questions of law." Miller v. Diamond Resources, Inc., 2005 ND
150, ¶ 8, 703 N.W.2d 316.
"Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law that [this Court
reviews] de novo on the entire record." Id. "[T]his Court decides whether the
information available to the trial court precluded the existence of a genuine issue of material fact
and entitled the moving party to judgment as a matter of law." Id. "In determining whether summary
judgment is appropriately granted, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion, and that party will be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that can
reasonably be drawn from the evidence." Id. "Negligence and proximate cause are fact
questions unless the evidence is such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion, and
negligence actions are generally not appropriate for summary judgment." Id. "Although negligence actions are
ordinarily inappropriate for summary judgment, one of the elements of the tort of negligence is
the existence of a duty on the part of the alleged tortfeasor, and whether a duty exists is generally
a preliminary question of law for the court." Crowston v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
521 N.W.2d 401, 406 (N.D. 1994) (citation
omitted).III[¶8] The district court found it was
undisputed that JB and B&B did not jointly design or manufacture the trucks, JB was not in
the business of manufacturing hot oil trucks, the trucks did not reach the end user without
substantial changes in its condition, and no evidence of a defect was
presented.In order to recover for injuries sustained as a result of a
defective condition in a product, unreasonably dangerous to a consumer, the plaintiff must show
by a preponderance of the evidence the product was defective in design or manufacture; the
defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to the consumer; the defect existed when the
product left the manufacturer; and the defect was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's
injuries. Endresen v. Beretta
USA Corp., 1997 ND 38, ¶ 8, 560 N.W.2d 225. "Whether 'a
manufacturer fits within the parameters of strict liability in tort is essentially a factual question
for the trier of fact.'"  Id. (citing
Stillwell v. Cincinnati Inc., 336 N.W.2d 618,
622 (N.D. 1983)). See North Dakota
Products Liability Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 28-01.3.[¶9] The record
shows a factual dispute exists whether JB was a manufacturer under a theory of strict liability. JB
participated in the construction of a vehicle without the presence of electronic safety valves, and
delivered this alleged defect in the vehicle to the end user in that condition. Evidence was
introduced that JB had previously constructed similar vehicles. While it is not disputed that the
truck was later altered by B&B, deposition testimony alleged that based on the design of the
EnerFab truck the point at which those valves should have been installed was during assembly of
the firebox while in JB's control. Under the deferential standard of summary judgment and
viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, a reasonable factual dispute as
to the design and assembly of the truck exists. Because a genuine issue of material fact exists,
summary judgment and dismissal of the strict products liability claim was error.IV[¶10] The district court found that JB had no
duty to install the electronic shutoff valve or to instruct B&B to install the electronic shutoff
valve, and the proximate cause of the Messers' injuries cannot be attributed to JB's alleged failure
to install the shutoff valve. "To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the
defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and the plaintiff has
suffered an injury that was proximately caused by the defendant's negligence." Beckler v. Bismarck Public School Dist., 2006
ND 58, ¶ 8, 711 N.W.2d 172.
For claims based on defective products, "[n]egligence focuses on whether or not the conduct of
the manufacturer or seller falls below the standard of reasonable care." Oanes v. Westgo, Inc., 476 N.W.2d 248, 253 (N.D. 1991). "In negligent design claims it is
well established that a manufacturer or seller is not liable in the absence of proof that a product is
defective." Id. A manufacturer of a
product "owes a duty of care toward a user, although there is no privity of contract between them,
where the article is inherently dangerous or where it is reasonably certain, if negligently designed
or manufactured, to place life and limb in peril." Lindenberg v. Folson, 138 N.W.2d 573, 582 (N.D. 1965). "One who has been injured by a
product may seek to hold the manufacturer or seller liable on the theory that the design of the
product made it dangerous and, apart from whether it was negligent so to design it, negligence
inhered in a failure to warn of the danger." Id.
at 582-83. Thus, even though the manufacturer
may be found not to be negligent in the design of the product, the manufacturer may be found
negligent for failure to warn if the product is dangerous. "[I]f the existence of a duty depends
upon factual determinations, their resolution is for the trier of fact. The appropriate procedure in
such cases is for the court to instruct the jury as to the defendant's duty, or absence of duty, if
certain facts are found." Butz v. Werner,
438 N.W.2d 509, 511 (N.D.
1989).[¶11] The trial court, after parsing the deposition
testimony and what it found to be undisputed facts, concluded that "it appears as though the
products liability act for the State of North Dakota does not apply to this particular situation and
to JB's Welding" and, with respect to the claim for negligence, concluded that "Messers have
failed to establish a duty, breach, and proximate cause in this case." However, as we discuss
above, the deposition testimony and undisputed facts and the inferences which a trier of fact
might draw therefrom lead us to conclude reasonable issues of material fact exist as to JB's status
as a manufacturer of the truck, and whether JB's alleged failure to install the electronic shutoff
valves was the proximate cause of the Messers' injuries. Because this status is undetermined,
whether JB holds a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design or manufacture of the truck, or
holds a duty to warn of the inherit danger of the vehicle, depends on factual determinations to be
decided by a trier of fact. The appropriate procedure is to instruct the jury to find the status of JB
before determining whether a duty, if any, was owed by JB to the Messers.V[¶12] We reverse the district court's order and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[¶13] Gerald W. VandeWalle,
C.J.Dale V. SandstromDaniel J. CrothersCarol Ronning KapsnerLisa Fair
McEvers