P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 4363

CH AR LES S PENCE, A p p e llan t,

v. T H E E S A B G R O U P , IN C .,

A p p e a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 1: 07- cv- 00583) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H

. R ambo

A r gued J ul y15, 2010
B efore: F U E N T E S , V A N A S K IE an d W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober18, 2010)
W i l l i am D

. G eor ge, E s qui r e ( A r gued) Con n e l l y , Ba k e r , W o t r i n g LLP 700 J PM or gan C has e Tow er2 600 T r avi s St r eet H ous t on, T X 77002

C ouns el forA ppel l ant C har l es S. M ar i on, E s qui r e ( A r gued) Pe p p e rHami l t o n LLP 3 0 0 0 T w o L o g an S q u are E ig h tee n th a n d A rc h S tre e ts Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103
Ju sti n G

. W eb er, E sq u ir e Pe p p e rHami l t o n LLP 100 M ar ketSt r eet , Sui t e 200 P. O

. B ox 1181 H arr i s bur g, PA 17108
K en n eth M

. A rge n ti eri, E sq u ir e Dua n e M o r r i s LLP 600 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 5010 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219

C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT3 V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s appea l cal l s upon us t o det er m i ne w hether P e n n sy lv a n ia la w im p o se s u p o n a sh ip p e r a d u tyo f d u e c a re to sa f e lyse c u re th e g o o d s th e sh ip p e r h a s lo a d e d in a th ir d -p a rty carr i er ’ s t r act or - t r ai l er . T he D i s t r i ctC our t , concl ud i ng t hat P en n sy lvan ia l aw d id no t im p o se suc h a d u ty , aw ard ed su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof the s hi pper , T he ES A B G roup, I nc. ( “ES A B ”) , and aga i ns tt he ca r r i er ’ s i nj ur ed dr ive r , appel l ant C har l es Spence. B eca us e w e fi nd t hat , under t he ci r cumst ance s o f t h i s c a s e , P e n n s y l v a n i a l a w i mp o s e d a d u t yo f c a r e o n ES AB, w e w i l l rever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entand r emand for furt her proceedings. I. F a c ts O n M ay1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , S p en ce w as in jured w h en h is trac tortr ail er o v e rtu rne d as h e w as ro u n d ing a turn in H an o v er, Penns y l vani a. T he ac ci dentoccurr ed s ho r t l yaft erSpence, an e x p e r i e n c e d t ru c k d r i v e r , p i c k e d u p a l o a d o f c a r g o f r o m E S AB t o t r ans por t t o H ous t on, T exas . T he car go – w el di ng su p p l i es m anufa ctur ed byE SA B – w as packag ed byE SA B i nt o boxes and ca r t ons , s t acke d ont o p all ets, and then s t r et ch w r apped. Spence w as on t he tr ai l erw hi l e ES A B load ed t he pal l et s by for kl i ftont o t he tr ai l er . S p ence s ecur ed the ca r go w i t h “l oad s t ar s ” furni s hed byE SA B

. L oad st ar s ar e sm al l m et al cl eat s t hat ar e pl ace d on t he fl oorof th e tr ail er and s ecur e the pal l et s t hat a r e l o a d e d o n t o t h e m. S p e n c e h a d t r a n s p o r t e d we l d i n g s u p p l i e s f o rES AB – packa ged and l oaded the s ame w ayas on t he dayof the ac ci dent – on approx im atel yfi ve occ as i ons . O n t he fi r s tocca s i on, Spence c om pl ai ned t o E SA B t hathe di d notli ke thatt he l oadSpence e xpl ai ned t hat on t hi s par t i cul arpr i orocca s i on, 1 i ns t ead of

s et t i ng t he load st ar s dow n w hi l e ES A B l oaded the c a rg o , h e c h o se to lay do w n in h is tra c to r’s sle e p in g b e rth beca us e he w as t i r ed. E SA B r equi r es t he i ndi vi dual dr i vert o s et (c o n tin u e d ...) 4 w as notbl ocked a nd br ace d, r efe r r i ng t o a met hod of s ecur i ng car go w hi ch w oul d have r equi r ed nai l i ng w ooden boar ds t o t he tr ail er’s flo o r t o co m p let elysu rrou n d the p all ets to sa fe g u ard agai ns tm ovement of the ca r go dur i ng t r ans i t

. E SA B as sur ed S pence t ha t i t ne ve r ha d a pr ob l e m w i th a ny of i t s l oad s. B el i evi n g t hatE SA B “knew bet t er ” than he a bouts ecur i ng E SA B ’ s pr oduct , Spence ha ul ed the l oad w i t hout bl ocki ng and b ra c in g . (A . 1 2 4 .) I n addi t i on t o ut i l i zi ng t he l oad s t ars ecur ement devi ces pr ovi ded by E SA B , Spence a l s o us ed a de vi ce know n as a “l oad lo c k ” to se c u re th e E S A B c a rg o . A lo a d lo c k is a n e x p a n d a b le pol e w i t h rubberon eac h end t hat i s w edged betw een the tr ai l er w a lls b e h in d th e la s t it e m in a ro w o f p a llets. A c c o rd in g to Spence, t he purpo se o f a l oad l ock i s t o pr eventt he l oad fr om sh ift ing b ac k w ard s tow ard s th e rea r do o rs of the trail er. S p en ce ’s e m p loy er p rov ided the load lock that h e u sed to se cu re t he ES A B car go. A l t hough Spence di d not encount eranypr obl ems dur i ng t hatfi r s thaul of ES A B pr oduct , on a su b sequentt r i p, w hen Spence a r r i ved athi s des t i nat i on, he opene d t he doorof the t r ai l erand s aw t hatt he pal l et s had s hi ft ed duri ng t r ans i t

. Spence does notdi s put e thatonl y hi s empl oy er - pr ovi ded l oad l ock w as us ed t o s ecur e t he l oad on t hi s pr i or occa s i on. W i th the 1(

. . . cont i nued) 1 the lo ad stars d o w n , an d w il l no t pu t th em d o w n in the d ri v er’s abs ence . 5 exce pt ion o f t hatpar t i cul arl oad, on al l of hi s pr i orhaul s for E SA B , Spence had s ecur ed t he car go w i t h bot h l oad s t ar s and a l oad l ock. O n none of Spence’ s haul s forE SA B , i ncl udi ng on t he dayof t he ac ci dent , w as t he ca r go bl ocked and br ace d. Spence’ s expertt es t i fi ed thati ti s t h e indus t r ypr act i ce f or s hi pper s , notdr i ver s , t o bl ock and br ace t he ca r go. O n t h e d a y o f t h e a c c i d e n t , b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t h ave a load lock w ith h im , S p en ce sec u red the ca rgo o n ly w ith E S A B ’s l oad s t ar s . A ft ert he pal l et s w er e l oaded ont o t he t r ai l er , Spence c l os ed, l ocked, and s eal ed hi s t r ai l erdoor s and sig n e d th e b ill o f

lad in g . S p e n c e th e n g o t in to th e c a b o f h is t ru c k a n d d r o v e t h e t r a c t o r - t r a i l e ra w a y f r o m E S A B ’ s f

a c i l i t y. As S p e n c e r o u n d e d a c u r v e a s h o r td i s t a n c e f r o m th e E S AB fac i l i ty , hi s t r act or - t r ai l erover tur ned, caus i ng Spence s er i ous i nj ur i es . Spence cl ai m s t hatt he ac ci dentoccurr ed bec aus e the l o a d s h i f t e d l a t e r a l l y.

II. P roc ed u ral H ist o ry On M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , S p e n c e b r o u g h t s u i ta g a i n s tE S AB i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M iddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, as s er t i ng cl ai m s of negl i gence , negl i gence pers e, an d gr os s negl i gence . T he cl ai m s w er e bas ed on Spence ’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e a c c id e n t w a s a re su lt o f E S A B ’s f

a ilu re to s ecur e the car go i tl oaded ont o t he tr ai l er , w hi ch, Spence al l e g e d , was a v i o l a t i o n o f i t s d u t yo f

c a r e t o Sp e n c e a n d t heW e vi ew t he “A s s um ed D ut y ” cl ai m as a s ubpar tof 2 Spence’ s n eg li g ence cl ai m . W e al s o not e thatt her e i s no separat e cause o f act io n u nd er Penn sy l van i a l aw for gross ne g l i g e n c e . S e e Hu n t e r v . S q u i r r e l Hi l l As s o c s . , L. P

. , 41 3 F. S u p p . 2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 0 n .2 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 5 ) (“ W h ile P e n n sy lv a n ia cour t s acknow l edge di ffe r i ng s t andar ds of ca re, the ydo not rec o g n ize d eg ree s o f n eg li g en ce as se p ara te ca u ses o f a cti o n . ”); Fl oy d v. B r ow n & W i l l i amson Tobacco C orp. , 159 F. Supp. 2d 82 3, 82 8 (E

. D

. P a. 20 01 ) ( dis m iss ing sep arat e cl ai m of g ross negl i gence beca us e under Penns y l vani a l aw “‘ gr os s negl i gence ’ ref ers to a stan d ard o f c are , rathe r th an to a s ep ara te claim ”). 6 proxim at e cause o f his i njur i es. O n J une 13, 2007, E SA B fi l ed a mot i on t o dism iss t he negli g en ce pers e cl ai m , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed on February 15, 2008. O n Sept ember 25, 2008, E SA B m oved for su m m a ry j u d g m en t. O n O ctob er 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed Spence ’ s r eques t for l eave t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai nt and s t ay ed cons i der at i on of ES AB ’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. O n O ct ob er 27, 20 08 , S pen ce fi l ed an am end ed co m plai n t, w h ich c o n tain e d f

iv e c laim s: N e g lig e n c e , N e g lig e n t F a ilu re to W arn, B r eac h of A s su m ed D ut y , Fr audul ent/N egl i gent M i s r epr es ent at i on, and G r os s N egl i gence . 2 E SA B fi l ed an a m ended s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on on February13, 2009. E S A B ar gued that , as t he s hi pper , i tow ed no du t yt o S pen ce, t he dri ver. E S A B ci t ed fe deral regul at i on s, w h ich E S A B a rg u e d “ sq u a re ly ” a nd “exclusi ve ly ” p lac e th e d u ty t o ens ur e thatcar go i s adequa t el y s ecur ed on t he dr i ver , and not t he s hi pper . E SA B al s o ci t ed U ni t ed St at es v. Savage TruckI n per t i nentpar t , 49 C

. F. R

. § 392. 9( a) and ( b) pr ovi de: 3 ( a) G ener al

. A dr i verm aynot o p e ra te a com m ercia l m o to r v e h icle an d a m o tor ca rri er m ay n o t r eq u ir e orper m i ta dr i vert o opera t e a co m m erc ial m o tor v eh icl e u n less-- (c o n tin u e d ...)

7 L i ne, I nc. , 209 F. 2d 442 ( 4t h C i r . 1953) , fo r t h e c om m on- l aw ru le th a t th e sh ip p e r w h o lo a d s ca rg o is o n lyliab le f o r d e f e c ts in load ing that are lat en t and n o t app are n t t o th e d ri v er. I n oppos i t i on t o E SA B ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , Spence a rg u e d , c itin g K u n k le v . C o n tin e n ta l T ra n s p o rt a tio n L in e s , In c ., 92 A

. 2d 6 90 ( Pa. 1952) , t hatunderPenns y l vani a l aw , t he s hi pper , E SA B , ow ed a dutyof ca re to Spenc e i n bot h l oadi ng and s ecur i ng t he ca r go, not w i t hs t andi ng t he fa ctt hatSpence a d m its th a t u n d e r f

e d e ra l re g u latio n s h e a lso h a d a d u tyto pr oper l ys ecur e the l oad. O n O ctob er 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted E S A B ’s m o ti o n fors um m aryj udgm enton al l fi ve cl ai m s of the A m ended Com pl ai nt

. A s t o Spence’ s negl i gence cl ai m , on w hi ch the ins ta ntappea l cent er s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that Penns y l vani a l aw di d not i m pos e on E SA B a dut y of ca r e under t he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e. I n t hi s reg ard, i tfound per s uas i ve the Feder al M ot orC arr i erSafetyR egul at i ons t hat im p o se u p o n th e c a rrie r th e o b lig a tio n to sa f e lyse c u re c a rg o to pr event s hi ft i ng dur i ng t r ans i t , ci t i ng 49 C

. F. R

. § 392. 9( a) and (b ), as w el l as 49 C

. F

. R

. § 3 93

. 10 0. A s t o the Pen nsy l va n ia 3(

. . . cont i nued) 3 ( 1) T he comm er ci al m ot or v e h icle’s car go i s properly di s t r i but ed and a dequat el ys ecur ed as s peci fi ed i n §§ 393. 100 t hr ough 3 9 3

. 1 3 6 o f th is sub ch ap ter.

. . . . ( b) D ri ver s of trucks and truck t r act or s . [T]he dr i verof a tru ck or tru ck tr ac tor m u st-

- (1 ) A ss u re h im se lf

/h e rse lf t hatt he pr ovi s i ons of par agr aph ( a) of t hi s s ect i on have been c om pl i ed w i th be for e he/ s he dr i ves t hat c o m m e rc ia l m o to r v e h ic le [ .] Subse ct i on ( c) of 49 C

. F

. R

. § 393. 100 pr ovi des t hat“[c ] ar go m u st b e cont ai ned, i m m obi l i zed ors ecur ed .

. . t o pr event s hi ft i ng upon orw it h in t he vehi cl e t o s uch an e xt entt hatt he v e h ic le ’s s ta b ility o r m a n e u v e ra b ility is a d v e rs e ly af f e c te d .” 8 Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng in K u n k l e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound th a t it c o n c e rn e d o n lyth e sh ip p e r’s d u tyo f c a re in re latio n to l oadi ng t he ca r go, and w as t hus not contr ol l i ng on t he ques t i on of a sh ip p e r’s d u t yt o secure t he load. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so ques t i oned K unkl e’ s cont i nui ng “vi t al i t y , ” as i tw as deci ded befor e the pr om ul gat i on of the fe der al r egul at i ons t hatm ake the carr i err es pons i bl e fors ec u ri ng t he ca r go. B ey ond fi ndi ng K un kle no t t o be on po i nt, t he D i stri ct C ou rt con cl ud ed that itT h e D istric t C o u rt a lso g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in 4 favoro f E SA B on t he negl i gentfai l ur e t o w arn and fr audul ent/ negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on cl ai m s of t he A m ended C o m p lai n t. S p en ce h as n o t cha ll en g e d the s u m m ary a d j u d i c a t i o n o f

t h o s e c l a i ms i n t h i s a p p e a l

. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l a f f i r m th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t ’ s s u mma r y j u d g me n t d e c i s i o n as t o those cl ai m s. 9 c o n f licte d w ith th e “ p re v a ili n g c o m m o n law d u ty ” a n n o u n c e d in Savage thatt he pr i m arydut yt o s ecu re car go r es t s w i t h t he carr i er , and the s hi pper ’ s du ty is t o avoi d l at entdefe ct s i n t he w ay t he car go i s s ecur ed. Savage, 209 F. 2d at445. T he D i s t r i ct C our t r eas oned t hat beca us e S pence knew t hatt he l oad w as not bl ocked a nd br ace d, he coul d nots how t hatE SA B had cr eat ed a l at ent haza r d. T he D i s t r i ct C our t t hus concl uded t hatSpence had fa i l ed t o demonst r at e t hat E SA B ow ed hi m a comm on l aw dut y t o ens ur e t hat t he w el di ng m at er i al s w er e pr oper l ys ecur ed, a n d e v e n if

K u n k le im p o se d a d u tyth a t th e c a rg o b e p ro p e rly l oaded, Spence fai l ed t o demonst r at e t hat E SA B br eac hed s uch a duty . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ct C our tgr ant ed ES A B ’ s m ot i on for sum m aryj ud gm ent as t o S pen ce’s neg l i gen ce cl ai m s. 4

I I I

. J ur i s di ct i on and St andar d of R evi ew T he D i s t r i ct C o u r thad di ver s i t yj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1332, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on overt he ap p ea l un d er 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. O u r rev iew o f a d istri ct co u rt ’s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti s p l enary , and w e mustappl yt he s ame st andar d the di s t r i ctcour tw as r equi r ed t o appl yunder Feder al R ul e of C ivil Pr ocedur e 56( c)

. Sm i t h v. J ohns on & Jo h n so n , 5 9 3 F

. 3 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ). T h u s, w e c an af firm10 onl y “i f t he pl eadi ngs , t he di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on f ile, a n d a n y a f

f id a v its sh o w th a t th e re is no g e n u in e iss u e a s to anym at er i al fac t and t hat t he m ovant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R

. C i v. P. 56( c) ( 2)

. A genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac texi s t s i f t h er e i s s uffi ci entevi dence favor i ng t he n o n m o v i n g p a r t y f

o ra j u r y t o r e tu r n a v e r d i c tf o rt h a tp a r t y. A n d erso n v . L iberty L o b b y , Inc

. , 4 7 7 U

. S

. 2 4 2 , 2 4 9 (19 8 6 ). In eval uat i ng t he evi dence , “w e mustvi ew t he fa ct s i n t he l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he nonm ovi ng part y and dra w al l i nfer ence s i n th a t p a rt y ’s f

a v o r.” N o rf

o lk S . R y . C o . v . B a s e ll U S A In c ., 5 1 2 F

. 3 d 8 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). Fur t her m or e, becaus e the det er m i nat i on of w hethera dutyof ca re e x ist s is a q u esti o n o f la w , K lei n k n ec h t v. G ett y sb u rg C o ll eg e, 98 9 F

. 2 d 1 3 6 0 , 1 3 6 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ), w e h av e p lena ry r e v i e w o f

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a tE S AB d i d n o to we Spence a dut y of car e. See B err i erv. Si m pl i ci t yM fg. , I nc. , 563 F

. 3 d 3 8 , 6 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). I V

. D i s cus s i on A s a f e d e ra l co u rt sittin g in d iv e rsity , w e a re re q u ire d to appl yt he s ubs t ant i ve l aw of the s t at e w hos e l aw governs t he act i on. E r i e R

. R

. C o. v. T om pki ns , 304 U

. S. 64, 78 ( 1938)

. T he p a rt ie s a g re e th a t P e n n s y lv a n ia la w g o v e rn s th is d is p u te

. W hen as cert ai ni ng Penns y l v ani a l aw , t he dec i s i ons of the P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt a re th e a u th o ritativ e so u rc e . S tate F arm M u t. A u to In s. C o . v . C o v iel lo, 23 3 F

. 3 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 3 (3d C ir

. 2000)

. I n the absenc e of a contr ol l i ng deci s i on byt he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt, w e m u st p re d ict h o w it w o u ld ru le i f fa ced w i t h t he i s s ue. C ovi ngt on v. C ont ’ l G en. T i r e, I nc. , 381 F

. 3 d 2 1 6 , 2 1 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )

. I n ma k i n g s u c h a p r e d i c t i o n , “ we11 m us t l ook t o deci s i ons of s t at e i nt er m edi at e appe l l at e court s , of f e d e ra l c o u rts in ter p re tin g th a t sta te’ s la w , an d o f o th e r sta te su p re m e cou rt s that have ad dress ed the i ssue, ” as w el l as to “ana l og o u s d e c i s i o n s , c o n s i d e r e d d i ct a, s chol ar l yw or ks , and any otherrel i able dat a t end i ng con vinci ng l yt o show ho w t he h i gh est c ou r t i n t h e s t a t e wo u l d d e c i d e t h e i s s u e a t h a n d

. ” No r fo l k S. R y . C o . , 5 1 2 F

. 3 d a t 9 2 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )

. We m u s t b e m in d f

u l th a t “ o u r d u ty is to a p p ly sta te la w . . . i r r es pect i ve of w hatw e mayr egar d as i t s m er i ts, ” K r aus s v. G r eenba r g, 137 F. 2d 569, 5 71 ( 3d C i r . 1943) ; w e maynot i m pos e ourow n vi ew of w hat s t at e l aw s houl d be, M cK enna v. Pac. R ail S erv . , 32 F. 3d 820, 825 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , nor“expa nd s t at e l aw i n w ay s not for es hadow ed bys t at e pr ece dent

. ” C i t yof P h il ad elph ia v. B ere tt a U

. S

. A

. C o rp., 2 7 7 F

. 3 d 4 1 5 , 4 2 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). “The pr i m ary el ement i n any negl i gence caus e of a ct i on is that the d ef

en d an t ow es a d u tyo f c are to the p lai n tif f.” A l t haus ex r el

. A l t haus v. C ohen, 756 A

. 2d 1166, 1168–69 ( Pa. 2 0 0 0 ). A s e x p lain e d b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt:

T h e d eterm ination o f w h e ther a du t ye xi s t s i n a pa r t i c ul a rc a se i nv o l v e s t h e wei g h i n g o f s e v e r al di s cr et e fa ct or s w hi ch i ncl u d e: ( 1) t he r e l a t i o n s h i p bet w een t he par t i es ; ( 2) t he s oci al ut i l i tyo f t he act or ’ s conduct ; ( 3) t he natur e of th e risk im p o se d a n d f

o re se e a b ili ty of t he harm i ncurr ed; ( 4) t he c o n se q u e n c e s o f

im p o sin g a d u ty u p o n th e a c to r; a n d (5 ) th e o v e ra ll12 publ i c i nt er es ti n t he pr opos ed s ol ut i on. I d. Penns y l vani a has adopt ed a numberof pr ovi s i ons of the R es t at ement ( Second) of T or t s t o i nfor m t he cons i der at i on of t hes e fa ct or s . O ne s uch pro v isi o n i s § 323. See G r adel v. I nouy e, 421 A

. 2d 674, 677 ( Pa. 1980) ( “S ec t i on 323( a) of the R es t at ement [( Second) ] of Tort s has been pa r t o f the la w of P enn sy l van i a for m anyy ears . ”). T hat s ect i on provides:

O n e w h o u n d e rta k e s, g ra tu ito u sly orforcons i der at ion, t o r ender se rv ice s to a n o th e r w h ich h e sh o u ld recogni ze a s nece s s aryfort he pr ot ect i on of the other ’s per s on or t hi ngs , i s s ubj ectt o l i abi l i t yt o t he o therforphy s i cal har m r es ul t i ng from hi s fa i l ur e t o e xer ci se re a so n a b le c a re to p e rf o rm h is under t aki ng, i f (a) h is fail u re to e x erc ise su ch ca re i ncr eas es t he r i s k of s uch harm , or ( b) t he harm i s s uffe r ed bec aus e of t he o t her ’ s r el i ance upon t he under t aki ng. R es t at ement ( Second) o f Tort s § 323 ( 1965)

. I n Fel d v. M err i am, 485 A

. 2d 742 ( Pa. 1984) , t he courti ndi cat ed t hat Penns y l van i a’ s appl i cat i on of § 323 i s cons i s t entw i t h t he fol l ow i ng comm entt o t hatpr ovi s i on:13 [T]hi s Sect i on appl i es t o any u n d e rta k in g to re n d e r se rv ice s to a n o th e r w h ich th e d e f

e n d a n t sh o u ld r ecogni ze as nece s s aryfort he pr ot ect i on of the other ’ s per s on or thing s. It ap p li es w h ethe r th e h arm to th e o th e r o r h is th in g s re su lts fr om t he d efe ndant ’ s negl i gent c o n d u c t in th e m a n n e r o f h is per for m ance of t he undert aki ng, or from his fai l ure to e x e rc i se re a so n a b le c a re to c o m p lete it o r to pr ot ect t he ot h er w hen he d isc o n tin u e s it. Id. at 74 6 (qu o ti n g R estatem en t ( S ec o n d ) of T o rt s § 3 2 3 cm t. a). In F e ld , the c o u rt n o ted th a t th e s e c o m m e n ts a re p a rticu lar ly rel evan tw here a part y un dert akes a t ask and “po ssi blyfost ers a r el i ance by[t he pl ai nt i ff] on hi s eff or t s . ” I d. at747. Spence’ s ar gum enti n favorof r ecogni t i on of a dutyof c a re o n th e p a rt o f

th e s h ip p e r in th is c a se is c o n sis ten t w ith Penns y l vani a’ s appl i cat i on of § 323. I n t hi s r egar d, Spence doe s n o t a rg u e th a t th e sh ip p e r’s o b lig a tio n to e x e rc is e r e a so n a b le ca re w as e x clus ive. H e a ck n o w ledg es th at he h ad a d u ty o f c are i ns ofaras s ecur i ng t he l oad aga i ns tl at er al m o v ement w as c o n c e rn e d . S p e n c e c o n ten d s, h o w e v e r, th a t E S A B , as th e p a rty w h o u n d e rto o k to p lac e th e lo a d o n h is tra iler, p ro v id e d h im w i t h s ecur ement devi ces , and as s ur ed hi m t h at bl ocki ng and br aci ng w as unnece s s ary , al s o ow ed a dutyof ca r e. S p e n c e re li e s p rim a rilyo n a c a se th a t is c o n sis ten t w ith14 t he pr i nci pl e expr es s ed i n § 323, K unkl e v. C ont i nent al T r ans por t at i on L i nes , I nc. , 92 A

. 2d 690 ( Pa. 1952)

. I n t hatcas e, H arryR

. K u n k le bro u g h t suitag ains t C o n ti n en tal T r ans port at i on L i nes , t he s hi pperforw hom K unkl e w as t r ans por t i ng car go w hen his t r ai l ercr as hed on a Penns y l vani a hi ghw ayi n 1947. K unkl e, 92 A

. 2d at690–91. T he car go i ncl uded a 16, 000 pound l i t h o g r a p h ma c h i n e o n t h e “ e x t r e me l e f t ” o f a t r a i l e r o n i t s 6" s i de, w i t h i t s 5' 5" w i dt h “ext endi ng al m os tt o t he top of the tr ail er.” Id. at 6 9 1

. T h e rest o f th e carg o load ed o n the trail er, cons i s t i ng of “bul ky , l i ghtm at er i al , ” w ei ghed about7, 500 pounds

. I d. T he l oadi ng w as s uper vi s ed byan empl oy ee of t he sh ip p e r , w h ile K u n k le s a t in th e c a b o f h is v e h icle , “p u rp o se ly r efr ai n[i ng] fr om t aki ng anypar ti n the l oadi ng oper at i on beca us e the l oader s w er e uni on m en and r es ent ed i nt er fer ence o n th e p a rt o f a n o w n e r-d riv e r.” Id

. B e f o re d e p a rtin g w ith h is l oad, K unkl e not i ced t hat t he t r ai l erl i s t ed s om ew hatt o t he l eft s i de, butacc ept ed the as s ur ance s of the defenda nt ’ s di s pat cher t hatt he l oad w as “al l r i ght

. ” I d. at691–92. W hi l e dr i vi ng t he t rai l er w i t h the l o a d e d c argo, K un kle at t em pted t o p ass a vehi cl e, and w hi l e doi ng s o l os tcontr ol of the s t eer i ng, caus i ng th e tra c to r - tra iler to “ c ra sh in to th e in e v itab le te leg ra p h p o le al ong t he r oad. ” Id. at 690–91. K unkl e br oughts ui tagai ns tt he s hi pperfornegl i gent l yl oadi ng t he ca r go ont o t he t r ai l er . I d. at 691. T he i s s ue att r i al w as w hether t he l oadi ng of t he t r ai l eror K u n k le’s driving ca u sed the trail er to lose b alan ce . Id. T h e jury agr eed w i t h K unkl e, fi ndi ng t hatt he ac ci dentw as caus ed byt he s hi pper ’ s negl i gence i n l oadi ng, and notK unkl e’ s dr i vi ng. I d. T h e ju ryf

u rth e r f o u n d th a t K u n k le w a s n o t co n trib u to rily negl i genti n fai l i ng t o i ns pectt he l oadi ng oper at i on. I d. O n appea l , t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tfound that15 t he s hi ppercoul d be hel d l i abl e bas ed upon t he manneri n w hi ch i tunder t ook t o pl ace t he mat er i al s on t he tr ai l er , expl ai ni ng:

T he [s hi pper ] ’ s empl oy ee . . . w as aw ar e, ors houl d have b een a w ar e, of t he r emai ni ng i t ems t o be l oaded, and i tw as hi s r es pons i bi l it y t o s ee th a t n o d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n w o u ld be c r eat ed byw hatw as goi ng a b o a r d f i n a l l y. T h o se f inal it em s w ere a c tu a l l y l i f

t e d i n t o t h e t r a i l er by empl oy ees of the [s hi pper ] and they s houl d h av e r eal i zed thata pr oper l oadi ng of compar at i vel yl i ght o b jects w oul d nece s s i t at e a r edist r i but i on of the ca r go i n or der t o eff ectt he prope r bal ance . W hen t heys eal ed the do orof the tr ai l er w i t h 16, 000 pounds of a t otal l oad of 23, 500 pounds conce nt r at ed on the left si d e o f th e trail er, th eyw ere s ubj ect i ng the pl ai nt i ff, w ho w as w i t hi n t he for es eea bl e orbi tof h arm , to g rea t dan g er. Id . a t 6 9 1

– 9 2 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). B yf in d in g th e sh ip p e r liab le, th e c o u rt in K u n k le n e c e ss a rilyre c o g n ize d th a t th e sh ip p e r h a d a d u tyto p e rf o rm its under t aki ngs i n relati o n t o t he ca r go w i t h due ca r e. A l t hough K unkl e does notes tablish a s peci al dut yof ca r e rul e bas ed on16 the s h ipp er-ca rri er relati o n sh ip, o r de fin e a p arti cu lar st an d ard of car e t o w hi ch a s hi pperm us tconform i n l oadi ng and s ecur i ng car go, i tnonethel es s acknow l edges t hat s hi pper s ar e notexempt fr om t he gene r al dut yt he l aw i m pos es upon al l per s ons w ho u n d e rta k e to p e rf

o rm a p a rticu lar se rv ice n o t to e x p o se o th e rs to r i s ks of i nj ur yw hi ch ar e r eas onabl yfor es ee ab le

. See R

. W

. v. M a n z e k , 8 8 8 A .2 d 7 4 0 , 7 4 7 ( P a . 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ A ] d u tya rise s o n ly w hen one e ngages i n conductw hi ch for esee ab lycr eat es an un reas on able ri sk of harm t o ot hers. ”); K i m ble v. M ackint osh H e m p h ill C o ., 5 9 A .2 d 6 8 , 7 1 (P a . 1 9 4 8 ) (“A lth o u g h in d iv id u a ls ar e notr equi r ed t o guar d agai ns t every r i s k t hey conce i ve t o be pos s ible, theyar e undera l egal dut yt o pr eventhaza r ds w hi ch theyca n fo rec ast as p o ssible.”). A l t hough i tw as Spence w ho phy s i cal l y s ecur ed the l oad wi t h t h e l o a d s t a r s a n d c l o s e d a n d l o c k e d t h e t ru c k , E S AB nonetheles s s i gni fi cant l yi nvol ved i t s el f i n t he s ecur i ng of the lo a d . In o th e r w o rd s, E S A B w e n t b e yo n d th e tas k o f m e re ly l oadi ng t h e p r o d u c to n t h e t r a i l e r . I twas , a f t e ra l l , ESAB t hat s u p p l i e d l o a d s t a r s a s t h e s e c u r e me n td e v i c e . Al t h o u g h E S AB h ad p o sted a sign at its loa d ing d o ck say ing that itis th e d ri v er’s r es pons i bi l i t yt o s ecur e the l oad, Spence pr ovi ded evi dence t hat t he i ndus t r ypr act i ce i s fors hi pper s t o bl ock and br ace t he ca r go t hatt heyl oad, and t hat E SA B at one t i m e had s uppl i ed mat er i al forbl ocki ng and br acing. Spence a l s o pr ovi ded evi dence t hat s uppor t s an i nfer ence t hatE SA B as s ur ed hi m t hatt r ans por t at i on of t he pr oductw i t hout bl ocki ng and br aci ng w as s afe

. Spence t es t ifi ed that on hi s fi r s tl oad forE SA B , he compl ai ned about t he w ayt he tr ai l erw as l oaded:

I t ol d t hem t hatI d i d notl i ke the w ay that they load ed the t rail e r. I17 d i d n ’t lik e th e s m a ll p a lle ts . I di dn’ tl i ke i tbei ng dow n t he ce nt er of t h e t r a i l e rwi t h n o b l o c k i n g , no b ra c in g , n o th in g b u t th e sta rs. I d id s a ys o m e t h i n g a b o u ti t , a n d E S AB as s ur ed me t hatt heyhave never h a d a p ro b lem w ith a n yo f th e ir l oads , s o I t ook i tthatt heyknew bet t ert han I di d and haul ed the l oad. (A

. 1 2 4

. ) I n s um , t her e w as evi d ence t hatE SA B s el ect ed the a p p ro p ria te s e c u re m e n t d e v ic e , tha t S p e n c e c o m p lain e d to E SA B conce r ni ng t he w ay the car go w as l oaded a nd s ecur ed, th a t E S A B in re sp o n se sta ted th a t itn e v e r h a d a p ro b lem w ith a n yo f its lo a d s , a n d th a t S p e n c e re lied u p o n th is a ss u ra n c e in us i ng onl yl oad s t ar s t o pr eventl at er al m ovement of t he ca r go. W e m us t , of cour s e, cr edi t t hi s evi dence as t rue i n det er m i ni ng w h e th e r s u m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s w a rra n ted . W e v iew th is ev idence as s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hat E SA B un d e r t o o k t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s s u r i n g t h a tt h e l o a d was s ecur ed pr oper l y . W h etheri tdi d under t ake t o as s ur e the s t abi l i t yof t he car go, and i f i tdi d, w hetheri texer ci s ed r eas onabl e ca r e i n per for m i ng t hi s under t aki ng, ar e q u e s t i ons for th e ju ry to d e c id e . I m pos i ng a dutyof car e on the s hi pperdoes notabs ol ve t he ca r r i erori t s dr i verof r es pons i bi l i t y t o as s ur e t he s t abi l i t yof the l oad dur i ng t r ans por t

. A s not ed above , Spence a c k n o w led g e s th a t h e , too , o w e d a d u tyo f c a re w ith re sp e c t to18 s ecur i ng t he ca r go. A l l w e hol d, cons i s t ent w i t h K unkl e and § 323 of t h e R es t at ement ( Second) of Tort s , i s t hatt he s hi pper m ayal s o ow e a dut y of car e dependi ng upon t he rol e i tas s um es in c o n n e c tio n w ith lo a d in g a n d se c u rin g its c a rg o . O th e r c o u rts h a v e r e a c h e d a s i mi l a rc o n c l u s i o n . Se e , e . g . , Lo c i c e r o v. In ter p a c e C o rp ., 2 6 6 N .W .2 d 4 2 3 , 4 2 7 (W is. 1 9 7 8 ) (“ W e h o ld t hat [the st at e st atute] and t he fe deral safet yregul at i on s i m po se a cl ears t atut or y dut y on t he carr i er t o s ecur e t he l oad s afe l y , but theyd o n o t r eli ev e tho se w h o b rea ch a co m m o n law d u tyo f c are fr om l i abi l i t y for t hei r negl i gence and thei rcompar at i ve s har e of the r es ul t i ng damages

. ”) ; M edei r os v. W hi t cr aft , 931 F. Supp. 68, 74 ( D

. M as s . 1996) ( dut yi m pos ed b y r egul at i on on t he dr i ver d id n o tr el i eve s hi pperof l i abi l i t yforanyi ndepende nt n eg li g en ce fo u n d b ythe ju ry ). Penns y l vani a i s a com par at i ve faul tj ur i s di ct i on. U nder P e n n sy lv a n ia la w , a p lain tiff ’s n e g li g e n c e b a rs r e c o v e ryo n ly w h e n it is g re a t e r t h a n th a t o f th e d e f e n d a n t. 4 2 P a . C .S .A . § 7102. B eca us e “i ti s a ra r e si tuat i on w her e i t can be s ai d t hatt he p lai n ti ff is m o re tha n 5 0 % n eg li g en t as a m att er of law , ” G il b ert v . C o n so l. R a il C o rp ., 6 2 3 A .2 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 6 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 1993) , t he as s es s m entof th e r el at i ve r es pons i bi l i t yfort he i nj ur i es s us t ai ned bySpence i s pr oper l yl eftt o t he j ur y . See G i l pi n v. L angan, 789 F. 2d 1034, 1036 ( 3d C i r . 1 9 86) ( “The det er m i nat i on t hata pl ai nt i ff' s negl i gence amount ed t o fi fty - one per centof t he ca us al conductand ther ebybarr ed r e c o very , r ather than to for t y–ni ne per cent , l eadi ng onl yt o a r educt i on of the aw ar d, i s pecul i ar l ya mat t eron w hi ch r eas onabl e mi nds m ay di ffe r . ”)

. C ons equent l y , w e fi nd t hats um m aryj u d g m en t on Spence’ s negl i gence cl ai m s w as notw arr ant ed. T h is c o n c lu sio n is n o t in c o n sis ten t w ith th e F o u rth19 C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n Savage, t he ca s e upon w hi ch the D i s t r i ct C our tpl ace d pr i nci pal r el i ance . A ccor di ng t o Savage:

T he pr i m arydut yas t o t he s afe l oadi ng of pr oper t yi s . . . upon t he carr i er . W hen the s hi pperas s um es t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t yo f

l o a d i n g , t he gener al rul e i s t hathe bec om es li abl e fort he def

ect s w hi ch ar e l at ent and conce al ed and cannotbe di s cerned byor di naryobs er vat i on b yth e a g e n ts o f

th e c a rrie r; b u t if th e im p ro p e r lo a d in g is a p p a re n t, th e c a rrie r w ill be li a b le not w i t hs t andi n g t he negl i gence of the s h ipp er. 2 0 9 F .2 d a t 4 4 5

. N o tab ly , S a v a g e d id n o t h o ld th a t th e e x c lu siv e d u tyto s ecur e the car go agai ns t m ovement dur i ng t r ans i t r es t s w i t h t he carr i er . I ns t ead, i tr ecogni zed thatt he ca rri er , t he part yi n t he b e st p o sitio n to k n o w a b o u t th e h a n d lin g c h a ra c ter istics o f its v e h icle s , h a s th e p rim a ryo b lig a tio n to a ss u re th a t th e c a rg o is l oaded i n a s ecur e manner . Savage a cknow l edged thata s hi pper m ayhave l i abi l i t y w hen an acc i dent r es ul t s fr om m ovement of g o o d s d u r i n g t r a n s p o r ti f t h e s h i p p e rc r e a t e d a n o n - a p p a r e nt c o n d iti o n th a t ca u se d th e lo a d to sh if t. H er e, t he D i s t r i ct C our t found t hat w hi l e t he l at encyof a defe cti s or di nar i l y a ques t i on of fa ct , t her e w as no di s put e i n t he cas e that it w as appar entt o Spence thatt he ca r go w as not blocked and braced. T he D i stri ctC ou rtreas on ed thatbecau se20 the ab sen ce o f b lock ing an d b rac ing w as re ad il yap p are n t, there w a s n o iss u e o f f

a c t co n c e rn in g th e late n c yo f th e a lleg e d d e f

e c t. H ow ever , t he obvi ous nes s of the abs ence of a par t i cul arm ethod of s ecur i ng a l oad, does not nece s s ar i l ycompel a conc l us i on t hat th e risk c re a ted b yth e m iss in g se c u re m e n t d e v ice is p a ten t. I n Fr ankl i n St ai nl es s C orp. v. M ar l o T r ans p. C orp. , 748 F. 2d 865 ( 4t h C i r . 1984) , a cas e appl y i ng Savage, a ca r r i erw as engage d t o tr ans por tcoi l s of s t ai nl es s s t eel for a s hi pper . I d. at 86 6. T he shi pp er l oad ed the st eel coil s onto t w o tr act or- t rai l ers , b u td i d n o tt a k e a n yme a s u r e s t o s e c u r e t h e c a r g o . I d

. The c a rrie r in f

o rm e d th e sh ip p e r th a t h e h a d n e v e r h a u led ste e l co ils and i nqui r ed w hetherthe l oad w as s ecur e. I d. T he s hi pper as s ur ed the car r i ert hati thad us ed the s t andar d l oadi ng m ethod a n d th a t th e re w o u ld b e n o tro u b le w ith th e lo a d

. Id

. In tra n sit, one o f t h e t ru c k s c o l l i d e d wi t h a n o t h e r v e h i c l e . I d. I n a per s onal i nj ur yact i on br oughtbyt he vi ct i m s of the col l i s i on, t he j ur yr etur ned a ve r di ctagai ns tt he s hi p p er, f indi ng t hatt he i m pr operl oadi ng of t he truck w as a ca us e of t he acci dent

. I d. at 866–67. T he s hi ppers oughti ndemni t yorcontr i but i on fr om t he carr i erbas ed on the ca r r i er ’ s negl i gence . I d. at 867. T he di s t r i ct c ou rt ackn ow l edg ed that t he shi pp er had been neg l i gen t in lo a d in g th e c o ils, b u t u n d e r S a v a g e , itf o u n d th a t th e d e f

e c t in l oadi ng w as open and obvi ous t o the carr i er , t hus abs ol vi ng t he s hi pperof l i abi l i t y . I d. T h e Four t h C i r cui tdi s agr eed: “[The s h i p p e r ’ s ] l o a d i n g o f

t h e h e a v ys t e e l c o i l s f

l a to n p a l l e t s d o wn t he ce nt erof t he trucks w i t houts t r appi ng and chocki ng w as , of c o u r s e , o p e n a n d o b v i o u s t o t h e t ru c k e r . I td o e s n o tf o l l o w, how ever , t hatt he def

ecti n t hi s m annerof l oadi ng w as open and obvi ous . ” I d. at868. I n r ej ect i ng t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hat t he def ecti n l oad ing w as open and obvi ous t o t he ca r r i er , t he21 Four t h C ir cui t , i n par t , r el i ed on the evi dence t hatt he s hi pper as s ur ed t he dr i vert hatt he met hod of l oadi ng w as pr oper , and th a t th e ju ry f

o u n d th a t th e d riv e r re a so n a b lyre lied o n th is as s ur ance . I d. at868–69. T he Four t h C i r cui tnot ed that“[t ] he j u r y ’ s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t ru c k e r r e a s o n a b l y r e l i e d on [t he s hi pper ’ s ] as s ur ance aboutt he s afe t yof the l oad i s t antamount t o a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d e f

e c t was n o t o p e n a n d o b v i o u s . ” I d. at 869. Fr ankl i n i s i n har m onyw i t h § 323 of the R es t at ement ( S e c o n d ) of T o rts. In th is reg a rd , F ra n k lin re c o g n ize d th a t a s hi pper ’ s as s ur ance s t hatcar go has been pr oper l y s ecur ed may estab lish an “u n d ertak ing ” o f se rvice s to w h ich a d u tyo f c are at t ache s . T he Four t h C i r cui t i ndi cat ed t hat t he evi dence m us tbe su c h a s to e sta b lish th a t th e s h ip p e r u n d e rto o k so m e ro le in s ecur i ng t he l oad, fi ndi ng t hatthi s r equi r ement forl i abi l i t yw as as s ur ed thr ough t he fol l ow i ng j ur ychar ge:

I ns ofaras t he negl i gence of the defe ndant[s hi pper ] i s concer ned, y o u a re told th at w h il e the p ri m ary dut yas t o t he saf

e l oadi ng of goods b e in g sh ip p e d to p re v e n t sh if tin g is on t he ca r r i er. . . , nevert hel es s , i f a s hi pper. . . , byi t s act s or s t at em ent s , under t akes oras s um es respons i bi l i t yforl oadi ng as for exampl e byas s ur i ng t he ca r r i ert hat a ce r t ai n m eth o d o f l oadi ng i s s afe a n d n o rm a l an d th e c a rrie r o r its empl o y ees r eas onabl yr el yupon su c h a ss u ra n c e , the n it i s th e d u ty22 of t he s hi pp e r. . . t o e xe r c i se or di narycar e t o s ee t hat t he l oadi ng is d o n e in a s a f

e m a n n e r . . . . F ran k li n , 7 4 8 F

. 2 d at 86 9 n . 3 (em p h asis ad d ed ). Itis thu s clea r th at ev en u n d er the S av ag e ru le su m m ary adj udi cat i on of t he negl i gence cl ai m s w as notw arr ant ed. T hat i s , t h e r e a r e i s s u e s o f ma t e r i a l f a c t a s t o whe t h e r t h e l a c k of bl ocki ng and br aci ng w as a l at entdefe ct

. See G ran tha m v. Nu c o rCo rp . , No

. 2 : 0 7

- CV

- 2 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 WL 3 9 2 5 2 1 1 , a t* 3 ( D. U t ah A u g . 2 0 , 2008) ( fi ndi ng genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t exi s t ed as t o w hetherdefe cti n l oadi ng w as l at entw her e dr i ver l acke d exper i ence haul i ng pr oduct s fr om s hi pper ’ s fac i l i t yand w h ere sh ipp er’s em p loy ee told the d ri v er, in resp o n se to d ri v er’s conce r ns aboutt he l oad’ s s afe t y , t hat he had been l oadi ng t rucks f o r q u ite a w h ile a n d th a t h e k n e w w h a t h e w a s d o in g ); S yn g e n ta C r op Pr od. , I nc. v. D oy l e B r ant , I nc. , N o. 3: 06- C V

- 84- S, 2008 W L 167293, at*3 ( W

. D

. K y . J an. 16, 200 8 ) ( cour tcoul d not concl ude as a mat t erof l aw t hatt ruck dr i verdi d n otr el yon s hi pper ’ s as s ur ance s t hatt he l oad w as sec u re a nd t her efor e an issue of fa ctexi s t ed as t o w hethert he al l eged de fec ti n t he s h ip p e r’ s lo a d in g o f

th e tr a ile r w a s a p p a re n t ) ; E b a s c o S e rv s ., I nc . v . Pa c . I n t e r mou n t a i n Ex p r e s s Co. , 3 9 8 F. Su p p . 5 6 5, 568–69 ( S. D

. N

. Y

. 1975) ( ques t i on o f w hethert he exc es s i ve hei ghtof a s hi pm entpr es ent ed a pat ent defe ct w as “notone for r es ol ut i on bys um m aryj udgm ent , ” i n p a rt , b e c a us e evi dence t hat s hi pper ’ s empl oy ees r epr es ent ed the l oad t o be of pr operhei ght r ai s ed “ m ater i al i s s ues of fa ctbear i ng on t he ul t i m at e i s s ue of all o ca ti o n o f li ab il ityb etw ee n ” the sh ipp er a n d the c arrier); S ma r tv . A m . We l d i n g & T a n k C o . , 8 2 6 A

. 2 d 5 7 0 , 5 7 5 ( N

. H. 2003) ( “[W ] heth era def ecti n l oadi ng i s obvi ous t hr ough23 o rdin aryo b serv ati o n o r co n ce aled is a q u esti o n o f f ac t. ”). M o re i m por t ant l y , as s ugges t ed byFr ankl i n, l i abi l i t y m aybe i m pos ed on t he s hi pperw her e ( a) i tpr ovi des as s ur ance s conce r ni ng t he m an n er o f lo ad ing an d sec u ri n g the ca rgo , an d (b) the d ri v er’s r el i ance upon s uch as s ur anc es is r eas onabl e. A s not ed above , t her e i s s uffi ci ent evi dence on eac h of thes e fa ct or s t o pr ecl ude s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I V

. C oncl us i on T hos e w ho under t ake the t as k of l oadi n g , s ecur i ng, and h au li n g ca rgo o n tr ac tor-trail ers ha v e a du ty to ex erc ise d u e c are t o pr ot ectpr opert y and per s ons fr om t he r i s k of harm . T he p rim a ryd u tyto a ss u re th a t a lo a d d o e s n o t sh if t in tra n sit gener al l yr es t s w i t h t he ca r r i erand i t s dr i ver . Spence doe s not d isp u te th is g e n e r a l r u le . B u t w h e re th e re is e v id e n c e th a t a s hi pperunder t ook t o l oad and s ecur e the ca r go bei ng t r ans por t ed b y a th ir d p a rtyc a rrie r, th e sh ip p e r a lso b e a rs a n o b lig a tio n to ex erc is e re aso n ab le ca re. T h e P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt re c o g n ize d th is pr in c ip le in K u n k le. M o re o v e r, th is p rin c ip le is c o n s is te n t w ith § 3 2 3 o f th e R e s ta te m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f T o rt s , a pr ovi s i on t hat h as l ong r efl ect ed the comm on l aw of P e n n s y lv a n ia

. I n th i s c a s e , t h e r e wa s e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e s h i p p e r , ES AB, under t ook notonl yt o l oad the ca r go, butal s o t o su ppl yt he s ecur ement devi ces and t o expr es s an as s ur ance t hat t hi s m ethod o f s ec u ri n g the lo ad w as a d eq u ate. I f, as in F ran k li n , a jury fi nd s that ES A B part i ci pated i n n ot on l yl oad i ng , bu tal so se c u rin g its w e ld in g su p p lies , the n th e ju ryw o u ld h a v e to d e ter m in e w h e th e r E S A B e x e rc ise d d u e c a re . T h u s, b e c a u se it under t ook t he t as k of furni s hi ng s ecur ement devi ces and24 as s ur i ng a s kept i cal dr i vert hats uch devi ces w er e ade quat e, E SA B cannotbe abs ol ved of l i abi l i t y att he s um m aryj udgm ent s t age. W hetherE SA B br eac hed i t s d u tyof ca r e and, i f s o, w h e th e r S p e n c e w a s n e g lig e n t a s w e ll a re m a tters c o m m itt e d to r es ol ut i on by a j ur y . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e t he D ist ri ct C our t ’ s entr yof su m m aryj udgm enti n favorof ES A B on S p e n c e ’s g e n e ra l n e g lig e n c e a n d b re a c h o f a n a ss u m e d d u ty c l a i ms , a f

f i r m th e e n t r y o f s u mm a r y j u d g me n t i n f a v o ro f E S AB on Spence’ s negl i gentfai l ur e t o w arn and fr audul ent/ negl i gent m i s r epr es ent at i on cl ai m s , and r emand forfur t herpr oceedin gs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s deci s i on.