Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00271/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00271-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Max Yeager, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SpeedCo Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-00271-TUC-DCB (DTF)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

 Before the Court is Defendant Speedco, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 85). The motion is fully briefed (Docs. 91, 97) and the Court heard oral argument 

on February 9, 2017. As more fully set forth below, the Court recommends that the 

District Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion. 

Facts 

 Plaintiffs Max and Sandra Yeager (Yeagers) were employed as truck drivers for 

Total Transportation Mississippi, Inc. (TTM). Doc. 90 at ¶ 1. On August 2, 2013, Sandra 

Yeager was driving a company truck east bound on I-10 just outside of Benson, Arizona, 

when she lost all steering capability leading to a single vehicle roll-over accident. Id. at ¶ 

8, 10. The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) concluded that the accident was 

caused by a failure in the truck’s steering system. Specifically, the DPS determined a 

corroded drag link to the steering arm ball joint separated from the steering arm causing a 

failure in the truck’s steering system. Doc. 86 at ¶ 5; Doc. 90 at ¶ 11. The Yeagers’ expert 

agreed with the DPS findings. The Yeagers’ expert further opined that the lack of proper 

Case 4:15-cv-00271-DCB Document 101 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

lubrication led to severe wear and corrosion of the ball and socket over time leading the 

ball joint to separate from the drag link on August 1st. Doc. 90 at ¶¶ 27-28. The drag link 

ball joint was dry and rusted at the time of the crash. Additionally, the valve used to 

apply grease to the ball and socket (zerk valve) was broken. Doc. 86 at ¶ 76; Doc. 90 at 

¶¶ 22, 47. 

 A month before the accident, on July 1, 2013, the Yeagers’ truck was serviced by 

Defendant Speedco, Inc. (Speedco) in Flowood, Mississippi. The truck was serviced by 

Speedco rather than TTM’s in-house shop because TTM’s in-house shop was too busy on 

July 1st to perform the service. Doc. 86 at ¶ 18; Doc. ¶¶ 15-18. TTM employee Grant 

Giles (Giles) contacted Speedco on July 1st to request service for the truck. Id. at ¶ 25. 

Giles does not recall talking with either the Yeagers or Speedco on July 1, nor does he 

recall the specific services he asked Speedco to perform. Id. at ¶¶ 26-28. The assistant 

manager at Speedco, Melissa Mason (Mason), testified that Speedco performed an oil 

change and a truck tire service on the truck. Doc. 90-2, p. 29, ll. 17-25. According to 

Mason, Speeco’s service included greasing the truck’s drag link ball and socket joint, Id. 

at p. 30, ll. 1-18, and that Speedco had a responsibility to notify the Yeagers or TTM if 

they saw something wrong with the drag link ball joint. Id. at ll. 19-24. Mason had no 

recollection whether the zerk valve on the drag link ball joint was damaged when the 

truck was serviced. Id. at p. 31, ll. 2-5; p. 35, ll. 11-24. Willie Jackson (Jackson), 

Speedco’s crew chief who visually inspected the truck to ensure the service had been 

performed also did not recall whether the zerk valve was damaged. Doc. 90-5 at p. 37, ll. 

3-21. Jackson’s documentation of his quality control check does not note a broken zerk 

valve. Doc. 86 at ¶ 86. 

Summary Judgment Standard 

 Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and 

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 

Ariz. 301, 305, 802 P.2d 1000, 1004 (Ariz. 1990). When the burden of proving the claim 

rests with the nonmoving party, the moving party need only “point out by specific 

Case 4:15-cv-00271-DCB Document 101 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

reference to the relevant discovery that no evidence exists to support an essential element 

of the nonmoving party’s claim.” Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, ¶ 22, 

180 P.3d 977, 982 (App. 2008) (quoting Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 310, 802 P.2d at 1009). 

If that burden of production is met, it is incumbent upon the nonmoving party to present 

sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of a material fact. 

218 Ariz. at ¶ 26, 180 P3d at 982. 

Analysis 

 Negligence 

 To be successful on a negligence claim, “a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) 

a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by 

the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct 

and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” Gipson v. Kasey, 218 Ariz. 141, 143, ¶ 

9, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (Ariz. 2007). “Whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of 

care is a threshold issue; absent some duty, an action for negligence cannot be 

maintained.” Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 11, 150 P.3d at 230 (citing Markowitz v. Ariz. 

Parks Bd., 146 Ariz. 352, 354, 706 P.2d 364, 366 (Ariz. 1985)). The existence of a duty 

is a question of law. Diaz v. Phx. Lubrication Serv., Inc., 230 P.3d 718, 721 ¶ 12 (App. 

2010). 

 Speedco argues that it does not owe a duty to the Yeagers because it was only 

engaged to perform an oil change and tire service on the Yeagers’ truck and this service 

does not include an inspection of the truck’s steering system (to include the drag link ball 

joint). Doc. 85at pp. 6-8. The Yeagers argue that Speedco owed them a duty to grease the 

truck’s steering components. Doc. 91 at pp. 8-9. The Yeagers contend that since the ball 

joint is greased through the zerk valve, they were owed a duty to be told of any damage 

to the zerk value during Speedco’s performance of it service. Id. 

 The Court determines that Speedco is not entitled to summary judgment on the 

issue of duty because Mason, Speedco’s director of maintenance, testified that the service 

Speedco performed and billed TTM for included greasing the drag link ball joint. Mason 

Case 4:15-cv-00271-DCB Document 101 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

also testified that Speecdo had a responsibility to notify the Yeagers or TTM if it saw 

something wrong with the drag link ball joint. Mason’s testimony precludes this Court 

from determining that Speedco did not owe a duty to the Yeagers. 

 Speedco’s reliance on Diaz v. Phx. Lubrication Serv., Inc., supra, does not 

convince the Court otherwise. Diaz held, “[o]n this record, Jiffy Lube did not undertake 

to inspect the degree and pattern of tire wear.” 230 P.3d at 722, ¶ 17. Here, as mentioned 

above, Mason specifically testified that the service Speedco performed included greasing 

the drag link ball joint and that Speedco had an obligation to tell either the Yeagers or 

TTM if it saw something wrong with the ball joint. The Court will recommend that the 

District Court deny Speedco’s request for summary judgment on the issue of duty. 

 Speedco also argues that the Yeagers cannot establish that the failure to grease the 

drag link ball joint on July 1st caused the accident on August 2nd. As mentioned above, 

causation is an essential element of a negligence claim. Gipson, supra, 150 P.3d at 231. 

Causation is normally an issue for the jury. Id. at 230. “[T]here is liability if the 

defendant’s conduct contributed ‘only a little’ to plaintiff’s injuries.” Markiewicz v. Salt 

River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, 576 P.2d 517, 526 n. 6 (Citation omitted.). “When there 

is any evidence of negligent conduct which reasonable men might infer was one of the 

proximate causes of the accident, the cause must be submitted to the jury for decision.” 

Brand v. J.H. Rose Trucking Co., 427 P.2d 519, 523 (Ariz. 1967). (Citation omitted.) 

 After the accident the zerk valve was found to be broken. Doc. 86 at ¶¶ 75-76. 

Speedco’s expert opines that this damage occurred in the August 2nd accident. Id. at ¶ 92. 

The Yeagers’ expert opines that the zerk valve was already damaged when the truck was 

serviced by Speedco on July 1st

. Id. at ¶ 93. Speedco argues that summary judgment is 

required because the Yeagers’ expert has not opined that the alleged failure to grease on 

July 1st caused the ball joint to separate on August 2nd. However, there is evidence that 

the ball joint deteriorated over time and that the ball joint did not have any grease on it at 

the time of the accident. Doc. 90 at ¶¶ 47-49. Accordingly, there is evidence that 

Speedco’s alleged failure to grease the joint on July 1st contributed to the accident on 

Case 4:15-cv-00271-DCB Document 101 Filed 02/24/17 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

August 2nd thereby precluding summary judgment in Speedco’s favor on causation. See 

Brand, supra. The Court will recommend that the District Court deny Speedco’s motion 

for summary judgment on the issue of causation. 

Punitive Damages 

 Speedco argues that this case presents only garden-variety allegations of 

negligence and there is no evidence from which a jury could conclude, by a clear and 

convincing standard, that Speedco’s alleged failure to properly service the truck was an 

act committed with an evil hand guided by an evil mind. See Doc. 85 at p. 14, ll. 3-6. The 

Court agrees. 

 Under Arizona law, evidence of “gross negligence” or “reckless disregard of the 

circumstances” is not sufficient for punitive damages. Bauerlein v. Equity Residential 

Properties Management Corp., 2009 WL 89531, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2009) (quoting Volz v. 

Coleman Co., 155 Ariz. 567, 570, 748 P.2d 1191 (1987)). Rather, the punitive damages 

standard requires “something more” than gross negligence. Id. (citing Rawlings v. 

Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 161, 726 P.2d 565 (1986)). “The ‘something more’ is the evil 

mind, which is satisfied by evidence that ‘defendant’s wrongful conduct was motivated 

by spite, actual malice, or intent to defraud’ or defendant’s ‘conscious and deliberate 

disregard of the interest and rights of others.’” Id. (citing Rawlings, 155 Ariz. at 570, 748 

P.2d 1191). Punitive damages are not warranted unless “defendant acted with a knowing 

or culpable state of mind, or defendant’s conduct was so egregious that an evil mind can 

be inferred.” Id. (quoting Gurule v. Ill. Mut. Life and Casualty Co., 152 Ariz. 600, 601, 

734 P.2d 85 (1987)). 

 Here, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude, by a clear 

and convincing standard, that Speedco’s conduct was motivated by spite, malice, intend 

to defraud or that Speedco’s conduct evidences a conscious and deliberate disregard for 

the interest of others. While the Yeagers argue there is evidence that Speedco committed 

a handful of missteps in servicing the truck, these alleged missteps do not evidence a 

knowing, culpable or evil state of mind that is required for an award of punitive damages. 

Case 4:15-cv-00271-DCB Document 101 Filed 02/24/17 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

A reasonable fact finder considering the evidence could at most conclude that Speedco 

was negligent in performing service on the truck. 

 The Court will recommend that the District Court grant Speedco’s request for 

summary judgment on the Yeagers’ claim for punitive damages. 

Conclusion 

 For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the District Court, after an 

independent review of the record, grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment (Doc. 85). 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file 

written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation. A party may respond to the other party’s objections within fourteen 

days. No reply brief shall be filed on objections unless leave is granted by the District 

Court. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are 

filed, the parties should use the following case number: 4:15-cv-00271-DCB. 

 Dated this 24th day of February, 2017. 

 

Case 4:15-cv-00271-DCB Document 101 Filed 02/24/17 Page 6 of 6