Opinion ID: 2099789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: supplier of chattel

Text: Semler and Waldinger rely on the Restatement, supra, § 392 in support of their argument that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Sears owed Semler a duty in supplying the ladder. In addressing Semler's and Waldinger's argument, the district court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact to support the contention that Sears supplied the ladder and that as such, § 392 did not create a duty on Sears' behalf. The Restatement, supra, § 392 at 319, provides: One who supplies to another, directly or through a third person, a chattel to be used for the supplier's business purposes is subject to liability to those for whose use the chattel is supplied, or to those whom he should expect to be endangered by its probable use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by persons for whose use the chattel is supplied a) if the supplier fails to exercise reasonable care to make the chattel safe for the use for which it is supplied, or (b) if he fails to exercise reasonable care to discover its dangerous condition or character, and to inform those whom he should expect to use it. The Restatement, supra, comment e. at 321-22, discusses the definition of supplying a chattel for one's business purposes: One who employs another to erect a structure or to do other work, and agrees for that purpose to supply the necessary tools and temporary structures, supplies them to the employees of such other for a business purpose. This is true irrespective of whether the structure or work when finished is to be used for business or residential and social purposes. On the other hand, if it is understood that the person who is to do the work is to supply his own instrumentalities, but the person for whom the work is to be done permits his own tools or appliances to be used as a favor to the person doing the work, the tools and appliances are supplied as a gratuity and not for use for the supplier's business purposes. Semler and Waldinger contend that the presence of the ladder leaning against the heating unit upon Semler's arrival, together with the fact that no Sears employee attempted to stop Semler from using the ladder, creates a genuine issue of fact as to whether Sears supplied the ladder. In his deposition, Semler testified in relevant part as follows: [Sears' counsel:] Back in December of '97, what equipment did Waldinger provide you? [Semler:] I have  Waldinger buys every tool I need. I have no tool expense. I havea  my van is full of tools, hand tools, torches, saws, and on the top of my van there is a step ladder and an extension ladder. Q Does Waldinger provide you the truck as well? A Yes. .... Q [On December 22 of 1997, when you went to Sears, d]id you have your extension ladder with you? A Yes. .... Q Does that ladder have rubber soles on it? A Yes. .... Q Does Waldinger have any policies, to your knowledge, about using Waldinger equipment only? .... A I'm not sure if there was a strict policy as to using other people's tools. We shouldn't have to, and we don't normally. But whether there was a strict policy on paper, I don't know. Q Did they ever discuss that in any of the safety training that you had? .... A Yeah. Q Okay. What would they say about that? A Well, you know, a company the size of Waldinger shouldn't borrow that stuff. So we don't borrow tools. .... Q Back in 1997, was it common for you [Semler] to use equipment other than Waldinger equipment? A No. .... Q That day you choose not to use the ladder you had brought; is that correct? A That's right. Q Why did you choose that? A Because there was already a ladder on it  on the unit. Q But you certainly had an opportunity to have used your own ladder; isn't that right? A I could have taken theirs down and put mine up, yes. The record contains no evidence of any contract setting forth which party was to provide tools for Semler's repair work. However, as Semler's testimony shows, Semler arrived at Sears the day of the accident with a plethora of tools, including an extension ladder. Indeed, Semler testified that it was not Waldinger's policy to borrow tools and, further, that he could have used his ladder to perform the necessary repair work but chose not to. As the district court appropriately observed in finding that Sears did not provide the ladder for Semler's use, [t]he ladder was present when Semler arrived and he elected to use the ladder ... notwithstanding that a ladder provided by Waldinger was available to him and that the use of Sears' ladder was in contravention of Waldinger's policy. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Semler, and giving to him the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we determine that the district court did not err in concluding that there is no genuine issue as to whether Sears supplied the ladder for Semler's use. At most, the presence of the ladder leaning against the heating unit could be viewed as a favor to the person [Semler] doing the work. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 392, comment e. at 322 (1965). In such instance, its availability would be nothing more than a mere gratuity, the Restatement would not apply, and no duty would be owed by Sears to Semler. Having determined that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Sears supplied the ladder to Semler, we find the district court did not err in concluding that the Restatement was not applicable.