Case Name: J.M.F. TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARBURETOR & ELECTRIC OF LEWISTON, INC., Defendant-Respondent, and Freightliner Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. J.M.F. TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARBURETOR & ELECTRIC OF LEWISTON, INC., Defendant, and Freightliner Corporation, Defendant-Respondent
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1987-04-22
Citations: 113 Idaho 797
Docket Number: Nos. 15969, 16290
Parties: J.M.F. TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARBURETOR & ELECTRIC OF LEWISTON, INC., Defendant-Respondent, and Freightliner Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. J.M.F. TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARBURETOR & ELECTRIC OF LEWISTON, INC., Defendant, and Freightliner Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: SHEPARD, C.J., and DONALDSON, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 797–808

Head Matter:
748 P.2d 381
J.M.F. TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARBURETOR & ELECTRIC OF LEWISTON, INC., Defendant-Respondent, and Freightliner Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. J.M.F. TRUCKING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARBURETOR & ELECTRIC OF LEWISTON, INC., Defendant, and Freightliner Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
Nos. 15969, 16290.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
April 22, 1987.
On Denial of Petition for Rehearing Jan. 21, 1988.
Kim Jay Trout, Randall, Blake, Cox, Risley & Trout, Lewiston, for Freightliner.
John R. Stegner, Clements, Brown & McNichols, (appeared), Lewiston, and Diane M. Hermanson, Paine, Hamblen, Coffin & Brooke, (argued), Spokane, Washington, for J.M.F.
Jerry V. Smith, Lewiston, for Carburetor & Elec.

Opinion:
HUNTLEY, Justice.
By this appeal we are called upon to determine whether the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered by the trial court provide an adequate foundation for the judgment entered, or whether the findings and conclusions are so internally inconsistent and so lacking in findings as to specific issues of fact necessary to a resolution of the case that it is necessary to reverse and remand for new trial, the trial judge having retired.
On April 7, 1981, J.M.F. Trucking, Inc. purchased a Freightliner truck from an independent dealer of Freightliner. Freight-liner's warranty on the truck was good for 100% of repairs or replacement during the first 20,000 miles or twelve months. A separate warranty for the engine was provided by Caterpillar Corporation for the engine which it had supplied.
After delivery, J.M.F. had Carburetor & Electric of Lewiston, Inc. modify the high beam headlights by installing aircraft landing lights. Carburetor & Electric altered the circuitry by replacing the twenty amp circuit breaker with a thirty amp circuit breaker, and by replacing the factory relay with a "heavy duty" relay. J.M.F. had had such modifications performed on all of the trucks in its fleet.
Some forty-one days after purchase, while a J.M.F. driver was operating the truck, a fire began under the dashboard of the truck. The driver stopped the truck, turned off the motor, lights, and other electrical devices. Efforts to put out the fire failed and the truck was destroyed. At the time of this accident, the truck had been driven 13,689 miles.
J.M.F. filed suit against Freightliner on warranty, negligence and strict product liability theories. Freightliner filed cross-claim against Carburetor & Electric, alleging that repairs to the headlamp circuitry of the truck done by Carburetor & Electric were negligently and improperly done and proximately caused the fire. Caterpillar Corporation, the manufacturer of the truck engine, was neither named as a party defendant by J.M.F. nor joined by any other party.
J.M.F. alleged that the truck fire began as a result of an electrical failure. However, at trial, a Carburetor & Electric employee, Jim Luper, put forth a new theory to explain the origin of the truck fire: a fuel generated fire due to a faulty fuel solenoid valve. Freightliner's expert witness, Norman Buske, maintained that the fire was either of electrical origin and due to faulty headlight circuitry, or might have begun in the engine. An expert witness provided by J.M.F., Dr. Ernest Corp, initially testified that, in his opinion, the fire was electrical in origin. However, after hearing Luper's testimony regarding the precise wiring of the electrical circuitry, as well as the testimony of the truck driver that, at the time the fire began, the headlights were on low beam, Corp modified his opinion to agree with Luper that the fire was probably the result of a faulty fuel solenoid valve. Freightliner's expert, Norman Buske, also admitted that his own theories were less tenable if the headlights were, indeed, on low beam when the fire began.
This morass of conflicting evidence led to the trial court's failure to rule as to which of several possible causes of the fire was, in fact, the cause.
The trial court did explicitly find that the repairs by Carburetor & Electric did not contribute to the cause of the fire and entered judgment in favor of Carburetor & Electric on Freightliner's cross-claim. No appeal has been filed from that judgment. It also found that the truck was delivered with defective wiring. The trial court concluded that Freightliner breached its express warranty to J.M.F. that the truck would be free of defects; and that the truck was both in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous when delivered to J.M.F., causing the fire during normal use of the truck and leading to its total destruction. J.M.F. was awarded $71,338.85 (which constituted the cost of replacing the truck minus $5,000 salvage value). In sum, the trial court held for J.M.F. on warranty and strict liability grounds. We will first address the validity of the trial court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and then discuss the effect of the trial court's actions on the warranty and strict liability claims.
Freightliner appeals the trial court's findings that it was liable on theories of breach of warranty and strict liability to J.M.F. Freightliner further appeals the ruling that it be required to pay attorney fees to Carburetor & Electric, that award of attorney fees having been based upon a finding by the court that Freightliner's cross-claim was without merit. In a separate case, consolidated for purposes of this appeal, J.M.F. appeals the trial court's failure to award it attorney fees from Freightliner.
Our review of this case has been burdened by Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which are internally inconsistent and lacking in the resolution of key factual issues. The trial court "found" that Carburetor & Electric did not cause or contribute to the fire, yet did not find a cause of the fire. The trial court "found" that the evidence indicated that the truck "was delivered with defects in the wiring," yet, again, found no cause of the fire. A finding of causation is imperative to any ruling holding one strictly liable in products liability, as it must be proved that the defect which is the subject of the litigation caused the injury or damage. Shields v. Morton Chemical Co., 95 Idaho 674, 518 P.2d 857 (1974).
Most importantly, much of the evidence pointed to the solenoid valve as the possible cause of the fire. However, no rulings appear in the record as to whether the solenoid valve is properly viewed as part of the engine or part of the fuel system. The resolution of that matter is of some importance because Freightliner specifically warranted the fuel system, while Caterpillar warranted the engine.
It is not the province of this Court to sift through conflicting evidence; nor is it our duty to conduct an independent inquiry into causation. Accordingly, we remand for new trial on the issues of whether Freightliner either breached its warranty to J.M.F. or is strictly liable for selling a product in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition which caused the fire in this case.
We next address the trial court's award of attorney fees to Carburetor & Electric. As previously mentioned, Freightliner instituted a cross-claim against Carburetor & Electric upon the theory that the repairs and modifications to the truck, performed by Carburetor & Electric, led in some way to the fire which destroyed the truck. The trial court found that, in view of the evidence presented at trial, Freight-liner's continuance of its cross-claim was frivolous and unreasonable and awarded attorney fees to Carburetor & Electric pursuant to I.R.C.P. Rule 54(e)(1). While normally the trial court's award of attorney fees is accorded a great degree of deference as being within its unique expertise and discretion, Everett v. Trunnell, 105 Idaho 787, 673 P.2d 387 (1983), we cannot sustain such an award where the record itself discloses that the claim was not frivolously pursued. At the close of trial, Carburetor & Electric moved to dismiss Freightliner's cross-claim. At the same time, J.M.F. agreed to dismiss its claim against Carburetor & Electric, and the J.M. F. motion to dismiss Carburetor & Electric was granted. However, as between Carburetor & Electric and Freightliner, the trial court refused to grant Carburetor & Electric's motion to dismiss the cross-claim, stating: "I think we still have some disputed facts here...."
It is simply inconsistent and arbitrary for the trial court to have denied the motion to dismiss the cross-complaint, stating that reasonable factual conflicts existed sustaining the claim, and to later allow an award of attorney fees on the basis that the cross-claim was frivolously and unreasonably pursued. We therefore reverse the award of attorney fees to Carburetor & Electric.
In the separate case, consolidated for purposes of this appeal, J.M.F. appealed the trial court's failure to award it attorney fees. J.M.F. contends that it is entitled to attorney fees from Freightliner pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3), which provides for fee awards to parties in actions on a contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods. J.M.F. argues that, since the trial court found that Freightliner was liable for breach of warranty on its contract with J.M.F. relating to the purchase of the truck, § 12-120(3) applies. We do not reach the merits of this contention, because we have remanded the warranty issue for new trial and any discussion of attorney fees on this issue is premature.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Costs to Freightliner, no attorney fees awarded.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DONALDSON, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.