Opinion ID: 2738497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of the Duty to Warn

Text: Randy claims that Yanmar America breached its voluntarily undertaken duty to warn because: (1) Yanmar America's warnings were insufficient to warn of the safety hazard that actually caused the gray-market tractor to overturn, which was the propensity of the tractor to roll over under certain conditions because of its relative instability owing to its narrow wheel spacing and weight configuration or distribution, coupled with tires with higher tread patterns that raised the center of gravity of the tractor, and (2) because Yanmar America had failed to ensure that the safety warnings were disseminated in such a manner that they would actually reach the potential purchasers and users of the Yanmar gray-market tractors. As this Court noted in Beasley v. MacDonald Engineering Co., 287 Ala. 189, 249 So. 2d 844 (1971),8 liability for the breach of a duty voluntarily undertaken is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965), which states: 8 We have not been asked to overrule caselaw adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965). 32 1130214 'Liability to third person for negligent performance of undertaking. One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if '(a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or '(b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or '(c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.' 287 Ala. at 193, 249 So. 2d at 487 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A). See also Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. DeShazo, 845 So. 2d 766 (Ala. 2002). In accordance with § 324A(a), the trial court instructed the jury that Yanmar America could be held liable for negligently failing to warn Randy based on its voluntarily assuming a duty to warn only if Yanmar America's negligence increased the risk of harm to Randy. Yanmar America argues on appeal that it did nothing to increase the risk of harm to Randy by issuing the safety 33 1130214 notices in this case and by undertaking other activities to impede the importation, sale, and use of the gray-market tractors in the United States. Section 324A(a) applies only to the extent that the alleged negligence of the defendant 'exposes the injured person to a greater risk of harm than had existed previously.' Herrington v. Gaulden, 294 Ga. 285, 288, 751 S.E.2d 813, 816 (2013) (quoting Taylor v. AmericasMart Real Estate, 287 Ga. App. 555, 559, 651 S.E.2d 754, 758 (2007)). Moreover, the test is not whether the risk was increased over what it would have been if the defendant had not been negligent. Rather, a duty is imposed only if the risk is increased over what it would have been had the defendant not engaged in the undertaking at all. Myers v. United States, 17 F.3d 890, 903 (6th Cir. 1994). Liability can be imposed on one who voluntarily undertook the duty to act only where the actor affirmatively either made, or caused to be made, a change in the conditions which change created or increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff. Id. See also Patentas v. United States, 687 F.2d 707, 717 (3d Cir. 1982) ([T]he comment [c] to section 324A makes clear that 34 1130214 'increased risk' means some physical change to the environment or some other material alteration of the circumstances.). As mentioned above, Randy claims in part that Yanmar America breached the duty to warn that it had voluntarily undertaken by issuing insufficient safety warnings that failed to warn of the safety hazards that actually caused the tractor he was operating to roll over. The evidence is undisputed that those safety warnings never reached Artec or Randy. Because neither Artec nor Randy ever saw the safety warnings, Yanmar America's failure to include more specific information regarding the hazards of operating a Yanmar gray-market tractor could not possibly have increased the risk to Randy over the risk that already existed in the absence of a notice. See McMellon v. United States, 338 F.3d 287, 295 n.5 (4th Cir. 2003) (observing that [t]he plaintiffs do not contend, nor could they, that the government, by posting signs that the plaintiffs did not see, increased the risk to the plaintiffs over that which they would have faced had no signs been posted), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 387 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2004). 35 1130214 Randy also bases his argument that Yanmar America breached the duty to warn on his claim that Yanmar America had failed to ensure that the safety warnings were disseminated in a manner by which they would actually reach the potential purchasers and users of the Yanmar gray-market tractors. He points to the testimony of Trimm and Randy in support of this contention. Trimm testified that if he had been warned that the Yanmar gray-market tractor was not designed for, and not safe to operate in, the United States, he would have passed the information on to Northside and would have offered to purchase the tractor back from Northside. Randy testified that had he known of the stability issues associated with the Yanmar gray-market tractor he would not have used it. Randy argues that Yanmar America's negligence in failing to ensure that the safety warnings were disseminated to Randy increased his risk of harm. We disagree. Yanmar America conceded that it undertook a duty to warn owners and potential purchasers of the safety hazards associated with the operation of a Yanmar gray-market tractor in the United States. Yanmar America issued safety warnings and also undertook other activities to impede the importation 36 1130214 and sale of gray-market tractors in the United States, the importations and gray-market sales being circumstances beyond its control. Although it is undisputed that those safety warnings never reached Randy, the result is the same as if Yanmar America had elected not to undertake any such activities to warn the foreseeable users of the Yanmar graymarket tractors. By issuing the safety warnings and failing to ensure that they were disseminated to Randy, Yanmar America exposed Randy to no greater a risk of harm than he would have been exposed to previously had Yanmar America chosen not to act in order to warn the potential users of the gray-market tractors. Herrington, supra. We conclude that Randy failed to establish by substantial evidence that Yanmar America participated in an activity that increased his risk of harm over any risk of harm that would have existed had Yanmar America chosen not to warn potential users of the gray-market tractors in this case. Accordingly, the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Yanmar America's motions for a JML on Randy's failure-to-warn claim.