Opinion ID: 1710191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contributory Negligence and Causation

Text: Tractor & Equipment argued in the trial court, as it argues here, that as to their accident Rhodes and Roberson were contributorily negligent and/or that the accident was proximately caused by an intervening act, specifically, what it alleges to have been a defective repair of the tire after it was purchased from Tractor & Equipment. Rhodes and Roberson argue that Tractor & Equipment failed to produce legally adequate evidence of either contributory negligence or intervening causation in support of its summary judgment motions. As to the contributory negligence claim, Tractor & Equipment states that it produced evidence that before the accident, Rhodes and Roberson had been engaged in the dangerous activity of seating the tire onto a rim by igniting ether that had been sprayed onto the tire. When ignited, the ether exploded and forced the tire against the rim; it could then be inflated. We agree with Tractor & Equipment that it demonstrated both that this activity was hazardous and that it was engaged in by Rhodes and Roberson. Yet, however dangerous or ill-advised this activity may have been, Tractor & Equipment has pointed to no evidence that would link it in any way to the blowout of the tire after it was put in service. Simply stated, absent any link to the accident, this evidence not only fails to demonstrate contributory negligence, but is irrelevant. As to intervening causation, Tractor & Equipment discusses evidence that an employee of Rhodes and Roberson's employer, Cordova Clay, had seen a hole in the tire and had had the tire repaired by a professional repairer between the time when it was purchased from Tractor & Equipment and the time when it was put into service. Rhodes had known of the hole and had arranged for the repair. In this regard, the record indicates that a defect that led to the blowout, a critical separation in the sidewall of the tire, could have been discovered by the repairer during the unrelated repair of the hole. The record also indicates that when such a defect is discovered by a repairer, there is an obligation on the part of the repairer to reject the tire for any type of repair. On appeal, Tractor & Equipment argues that the tire was irreparably defective because of the sidewall separation, and that the unrelated repair of the hole should never have been done. [2] Stated differently, Tractor & Equipment argues that it cannot be liable to the plaintiffs for selling a defective tire because, it says, a third party should have discovered the sidewall defect in the tire and prevented its use by refusing to make an unrelated repair to a hole in the tire. The record contains expert testimony to the effect that there were blisters on the tire that the repairer should have noticed. The expert testified that if he had been asked to repair the hole and had observed these blisters, he would have inspected the tire for any safety related defects, e.g., the sidewall separation. To summarize, the record indicates: 1) that the repairer had an obligation to reject the tire for repair if the repairer discovered the sidewall separation, R. 58-59; 2) that the repairer should have seen blistering on the tire, R. 104; 3) that had the expert been repairing the tire and had observed such blistering in conjunction with an unrelated repair, he would have inspected the tire for safety defects, and; 4) that the sidewall separation was discoverable by a professional repairer. R. 54. As to the purported obligation to reject the tire for repair upon discovery of the sidewall separation, there is no evidence in this case that the repairer discovered the separation. Also, that the sidewall separation was discoverable or that the repairer should have observed blisters on the tire, begs the critical question whether the repairer should have examined for the sidewall separation. Although there is evidence that the expert would have done so, Tractor & Equipment points to no testimony indicating that the repairer should have done so. Based on the foregoing, the summary judgments are reversed as to the AEMLD and negligence claims. As to the warranty claims, they are affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. ALMON, SHORES, INGRAM, and BUTTS, JJ., concur. HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, and COOK, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.