Opinion ID: 2738497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voluntary Assumption of the Duty to Warn

Text: Initially, we note that Yanmar America was not the supplier or manufacturer of the Yanmar gray-market tractor involved in this case; therefore, it initially owed no duty to warn the expected users of the gray-market tractor of the safety issues relative to its use. See Ex parte Chevron Chem. Co., 720 So. 2d 922 (Ala. 1998). However, [i]t is well settled under Alabama law that one who undertakes to perform a duty he is not otherwise required to perform is thereafter charged with the duty of acting with due care. King v. National Spa & Pool Inst., Inc., 570 So. 2d 612, 614 (Ala. 1990). See also United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Jones, 356 27 1130214 So. 2d 596, 598 (Ala. 1977)(The law, simply stated, is that one who volunteers to act, though under no duty to do so, is thereafter charged with the duty of acting with due care.), and Fireman's Fund American Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 394 So. 2d 334, 349 (Ala. 1980) (Jones, J., concurring in the result and stating that [t]he rule is well established that common law liability to third parties can arise from the negligent performance of even a voluntary undertaking). The trial court concluded as a matter of law that Yanmar America voluntarily undertook a duty to warn Randy of the safety concerns associated with the use of a Yanmar graymarket tractor. Yanmar America acknowledged at trial that it voluntarily undertook a duty to warn; however, it did not believe that that duty to warn extended to Randy. Yanmar America argues on appeal that, by issuing the safety notices and undertaking activities such as the parts-blocking program in order to impede the sale of gray-market tractors, it did not voluntarily assume a duty to warn every potential user of the dangers associated with the use of a gray-market tractor. 28 1130214 The evidence indicates that Yanmar America became concerned that Yanmar equipment dealers selling gray-market tractors, owners of gray-market tractors, and potential purchasers of gray-market tractors were not aware of the important differences between the gray-market tractors and those Yanmar tractors manufactured and intended for distribution in the United States. Pott stated that the need for warnings arose out of the way the gray market had developed in the United States, as well as Yanmar Japan's decision to support the gray-market tractors with genuine Yanmar parts during a period in the 1990s, which, he stated, created confusion as to whether there were significant differences between the gray-market tractors and those Yanmar tractors intended for use in the United States. Thus, Yanmar America began disseminating safety notices for the purpose of warning Yanmar dealers, owners of gray-market tractors, and potential purchasers of gray-market tractors of the safety concerns associated with operating a Yanmar gray-market tractor. This campaign to warn Yanmar dealers, owners of graymarket tractors, and potential purchasers culminated in 2008 with a mass mailing to all authorized dealers of Yanmar parts 29 1130214 and service and construction and industrial equipment. Artec, the importer and party responsible for putting the gray-market tractor at issue into the stream of commerce, was an authorized equipment dealer of Yanmar America at the time. Pott testified that the purpose of the safety notices was to prevent injury and death to the owners and potential purchasers of the Yanmar gray-market tractors. In addition to issuing safety warnings regarding the gray-market tractors, Yanmar America engaged in other activities, such as the parts-blocking program, in order to impede the sale of the gray-market tractors. Thus, it is clear from the record, as well as from Yanmar America's own acknowledgment at trial, that it voluntarily assumed a duty to warn of the safety hazards associated with operating a Yanmar gray-market tractor. As for whether the duty to warn undertaken by Yanmar America extends to Randy,7 we note that '[t]he ultimate test of duty to use [due] care is found in the foreseeability that 7 We reiterate that Yanmar America conceded on the record that it indeed had assumed a duty to warn. Pott testified that the warnings were intended for owners and potential purchasers of the gray-market tractors and that the purpose of the warnings was to prevent injury and/or death. 30 1130214 harm may result if care is not exercised.' King, 570 So. 2d at 615 (quoting Bush v. Alabama Power Co., 457 So. 2d 350, 353 (Ala. 1984)). As discussed above, Yanmar America undertook a duty to issue safety warnings to owners and potential purchasers of Yanmar gray-market tractors in order to prevent injury and death resulting from the operation of those tractors. Therefore, the duty to warn that Yanmar America voluntarily undertook would apply to foreseeable owners or operators of the gray-market tractor Autrey purchased. Obviously, it was foreseeable to Yanmar America that Autrey, as an owner of a Yanmar gray-market tractor, needed to be warned of the safety hazards associated with the operation of a gray-market tractor or risk Autrey's being injured or killed while operating the tractor. Moreover, it was just as foreseeable that someone other than Autrey -- in this case Randy -- might operate the tractor and would also be in need of a warning via Autrey regarding the hazards associated with operating the tractor. Thus, we conclude that the duty to warn of potential hazards associated with operating the graymarket tractor extended to Randy and that the trial court did 31 1130214 not err as a matter of law in extending the duty to warn to him.