Opinion ID: 2379309
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability Of E & E

Text: To make out a prima facie case of negligence, Lindsey needed to present evidence on each of the following elements: duty, breach of that duty, proximate cause and damages. [9] Whether a party has a duty of care and, if so, the nature and scope of that duty are questions of law.... [10] Whether a defendant breached its duty of care is typically a factual question for the jury that is not susceptible to resolution on a motion for summary judgment. [11] Lindsey argues that E & E should be held liable for his injuries because the accident was caused by E & E's breach of its duty as a professional repairshop. According to Lindsey, E & E breached its duty by: (1) failing to inspect the parking brake system and locate the caged spring in the parking brake chamber after having possession of the truck for five weeks; (2) failing to adjust the release bolts so as to uncage the spring and disable the vehicle; (3) undertaking to repair the truck parking brake without adequate training and experience; (4) failing to reveal its lack of experience to Wesgro; and (5) failing to acquire knowledge by reviewing a service manual. [12] E & E largely does not dispute the facts and instead maintains that they are insufficient as a matter of law to support a claim of negligence against E & E. One who undertakes to inspect or repair a vehicle owes a duty to act with the amount of care that a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances and will be liable for harm caused by its failure to exercise such care. [13] Three more specific theories of negligence are implicated in this case, two of which are set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323: the breach of a mechanic's duty to exercise reasonable care can give rise to liability for harm if (a) [the mechanic's] failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking. [14] A mechanic may also be held liable for harm caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care to warn a vehicle owner of any dangerous condition of which the mechanic is or should be aware. [15] First, a mechanic will be liable where he negligently creates a dangerous condition or increases the danger. In the context of brakes, for example, a mechanic would be liable for improperly installing a brake drum, [16] improperly reinstalling a brake adjustor assembly, [17] or incorrectly assembling the parts of a brake mechanism. [18] As discussed above, Lindsey does not allege and has presented no evidence that E & E caged the spring in the parking brake chamber or made any repairs or modifications to the parking brake system. At oral argument before us, Lindsey also contended that E & E could have increased the risk of harm by rendering the truck operable after it was towed to E & E's facility in a no start condition. But Lindsey failed to make this argument before the superior court or in his briefing on appeal. [19] And even if Lindsey had preserved this argument, the problem with the starting mechanism has no relation to the non-functioning parking brake. Thus, E & E's repair of the starting mechanism could not render it liable for all other defects in the truck on the theory that it increased the risk of harm. Here, it is uncertain when the parking brake became non-functional. Lindsey does not allege that E & E's actions made the parking brake non-functional, and because Lindsey does not allege that E & E itself created a dangerous condition or increased the risk of harm to Lindsey, E & E may not be held liable under this theory of negligence. Second, a mechanic will be liable if the mechanic negligently returns a vehicle as repaired or inspected, giving the vehicle a deceptive appearance of safety on which the owner relies, when in fact the vehicle is not in a safe condition. [20] Relying on this theory of negligence, we reversed a grant of summary judgment in Swenson Trucking & Excavating, Inc. v. Truckweld Equipment Co. [21] In that case, a company inspected a ram assembly and installed it on a truck but failed to discover a defective weld in the assembly. [22] The company returned the truck to the owner as repaired and, about five weeks later, the assembly collapsed, destroying the truck. [23] We held that the question whether the repair company exercised reasonable care in inspecting and installing the ram assembly was one of fact for the jury to decide. [24] But unlike in Swenson, E & E did not represent to Wesgro that it had completed repairs on the parking brake and was returning the truck in a safe condition. To the contrary, it is undisputed that Kramp told multiple employees at Wesgro that he had not repaired the parking brake. [25] In doing so, E & E fulfilled its duty to Wesgro to exercise reasonable care not to induce reliance on the safety of the unrepaired parking brake. The rationale for holding a mechanic liable under this theory of negligence does not apply in this caseE & E did not give the truck a deceptive appearance of safety. Because E & E made no explicit or implicit representation, on which Wesgro may have relied, that the parking brake was repaired, E & E may not be held liable under this theory of negligence as a matter of law. [26] In effect, Lindsey seeks to impose an absolute obligation on E & E to complete repairs on the parking brake or face liability: The duty of a repairman is to repair. If he is unqualified to undertake the repairs he should say so up front.... But he has provided no support for imposing such an obligation. A mechanic might not be able to complete a repair for a number of reasons: lack of experience, lack of resources, lack of time, or because the owner of the vehicle decides against it. As Kramp testified in this case, a mechanic may undertake to repair a vehicle only to find that the problem is beyond his capability. It would not be appropriate, indeed it would be dangerous, to require a mechanic in such an instance to attempt to complete repairs to avoid liability. Rather, a mechanic who does not complete a vehicle repair fulfills his duty not to negligently induce reliance on the safety of the vehicle by clearly informing the vehicle owner that the vehicle was not repaired. Even if a mechanic makes clear to the vehicle owner that the vehicle remains unrepaired, the mechanic may still be held liable under the third specific theory of negligence implicated by this case: a mechanic returning an unrepaired vehicle is liable for harm caused by the use of the vehicle if the mechanic fails to exercise reasonable care to warn the owner of any dangerous condition of which he knows or has reason to know unless he has reason to believe that the owner is aware of the dangerous condition. [27] The liability of a supplier of a dangerous chattel finds some support in our case law. In Wickwire v. Arctic Circle Air Services, for example, we assumed that a company that leased a plane from the owner could be liable for negligence for returning the plane in a defective condition if the company knew or reasonably should have discovered the defect in the plane. [28] But because the owner presented no evidence that the company should have known about the defect, or even that the defect was present when the company had possession of the plane, we affirmed the directed verdict in the company's favor. [29] Lindsey does not dispute that Kramp told Docherty and the Wesgro employees who picked up the truck that the parking brake was not working. But Lindsey contends that the adequacy of this warning is a genuine issue of fact. Although breach of a duty of care is typically a factual question for the jury, in this instance no reasonable juror could conclude that E & E failed to fulfill its duty to exercise reasonable care to warn Wesgro of the dangerous condition of the truck. Lindsey first argues that the warning was inadequate because E & E did not inform Wesgro of the caged spring in the parking brake chamber. But there was no evidence that E & E knew about the spring mechanism. In fact, it is undisputed that Kramp had no understanding of and did not inspect the parking brake system and thus did not discover the caged spring. In this circumstance, it was adequate for E & E to inform Wesgro that the parking brake was not functioning without explaining the specific cause. Lindsey next argues that the warning was inadequate because, according to Docherty, Kramp did not tell him that the truck was unsafe and should not be operated until the parking brake was repaired. As the president of Wesgro acknowledged, Docherty should not have required the admonition of a repair shop to recognize that it is dangerous to operate a large commercial vehicle without a functioning parking brake. [30] Indeed, it was the policy of Wesgro not to operate its trucks without a functioning parking brake. It was reasonable for Kramp to believe that by informing Docherty that the parking brake did not function, Docherty would realize the dangerous condition of the truck; no more explicit warning was necessary. [31] Docherty's failure to follow his employer's policy and take the truck out of operation does not render the warning inadequate. [32] Finally, Lindsey contended at oral argument that E & E's warning was insufficient because it was not in writing on the invoice. But Lindsey has offered no legal support for requiring a warning to be in writing in all cases, and the facts of this case do not demand such a requirement. The purpose of a warning is to ensure that the vehicle will not cause harm to persons or property; this purpose was effectuated when Kramp provided a clear oral warning. E & E's warning to Wesgro that the parking brake on the truck was not functioning fulfilled its duty of care as a matter of law and absolved it from liability under this theory of negligence. [33] Because E & E informed Wesgro that it did not repair the parking brake and that the parking brake still did not function, E & E did not breach its duty as a mechanic as a matter of law and is entitled to summary judgment in its favor.