Opinion ID: 2551773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did agfa's installation and maintenance of the curix x-ray processor create a duty of care to technicians?

Text: ¶ 21 We emphasize at the outset that the district court was correct in denying AGFA's product liability statute of limitations motion for summary judgment. The court held that the claims brought here do not involve a defect or malfunction in the Curix machine itself and concluded that this is a negligence case only. Nonetheless, AGFA continues to argue, as a fall-back position, that Technicians' claims are time-barred by the two-year Product Liability Act statute of limitation, Utah Code Ann. § 78-15-3 (1996). ¶ 22 Utah Code Ann. section 78-15-6 (1996) provides in part: (1) No product shall be considered to have a defect or to be in a defective condition, unless at the time the product was sold by the manufacturer or other initial seller, there was a defect or defective condition in the product which made the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. (2) As used in this act, unreasonably dangerous means that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the ordinary and prudent buyer, consumer or user of that product in that community considering the product's characteristics, propensities, risks, dangers and uses together with any actual knowledge, training, or experience possessed by that particular buyer, user or consumer. ¶ 23 Technicians have not alleged that the Curix was defective or unreasonably dangerous when purchased. Indeed, the facts would not support such an allegation since Technicians used the processing machine without problems for several years prior to its reinstallation in the smaller, windowless mammography suite. Cf. Slisze v. Stanley-Bostitch, 1999 UT 20, ¶ 10, 979 P.2d 317 (declining to find less safe product unreasonably dangerous). Rather, Technicians contended that AGFA was negligent in its installation and maintenance of the Curix processor in the new location. Section 78-12-25(3) provides a four-year statute of limitation for claims of negligence. Technicians brought this action within four years of discovery of their injuries, and therefore this action is not time barred. See Slisze, 1999 UT 20, ¶ 8, 979 P.2d 317 (plain language of the product liability statute does not preclude common law negligence claims).
¶ 24 Initially, we note that because this case is before us on a grant of summary judgment we must decide only what the law and the evidence indicate that Technicians have a right to attempt to prove. What they actually can prove is a determination for the trier of fact. Consequently, if the legal framework exists for a duty of care, contingent upon proof of specific facts supported by evidence in the record, we must remand to the trial court for factual determinations. ¶ 25 The district court determined that Technicians could not prove that AGFA had a duty relative to the hospital's ventilation system or other legal duty sufficient to support a claim of negligence. To establish a duty, Technicians rely most relevantly on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, sections 324A and 388. [13] We shall discuss each of these sections in turn. ¶ 26 Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts states: 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 the reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking. ¶ 27 We have not previously addressed section 324A. However, other courts have adopted the duty to third parties that section 324A imposes. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Figueroa v. Evangelical Covenant Church, 879 F.2d 1427 (7th Cir.1989), recognized that section 324A creates liability to a third party in a party who undertakes a duty to a second party for the benefit of the third party. Id. at 1434 (applying Illinois law). The Figueroa court relied on Scott & Fetzer Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 112 Ill.2d 378, 98 Ill.Dec. 1, 493 N.E.2d 1022 (1986) (holding that section 324A applied to impose a duty on a fire-warning system company toward businesses adjacent to the one to which it provided services), and Eichler v. Plitt Theatres, Inc., 167 Ill.App.3d 685, 118 Ill.Dec. 503, 521 N.E.2d 1196 (1988) (holding that section 324A applied to impose a duty on theater toward persons coming onto adjacent parking lot where owner of lot relied on theater to remove snow and ice from parking lot). Figueroa, 879 F.2d at 1434; see also Repola v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 934 F.2d 483, 486 n. 3 (3d Cir.1991) (holding that New Jersey law permits an individual who is not a party to a contract, but who is within the zone of hazard created by the contract's activity, to maintain a cause of action against a contracting party for negligent performance of its contractual responsibilities). ¶ 28 The Utah Court of Appeals adopted section 324 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in Atkinson v. Stateline Hotel Casino & Resort, 2001 UT App 63, ¶ 19 n. 6, 21 P.3d 667, stating that the appellate courts of this state have not previously adopted section 324 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Our doing so now, however, is not much of a jurisprudential leap since the rule stated in [section 324] is [merely] an application of the one stated in [section] 323. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324 cmt. a (1965). We agree, and extend that adoption to section 324A. ¶ 29 There is no law, evidence, or stipulation indicating that the hospital's exclusive control of the ventilation system relieved AGFA of the duty it had undertaken to install and maintain its machine in a safe and operable condition. Therefore, AGFA's physical undertaking of the installation and maintenance of the Curix machine, which it should have known was necessary for Technicians' safety, conferred a duty of reasonable care in that undertaking under Restatement section 324A. ¶ 30 In order to be subject to liability under section 324A, AGFA must also meet the requirements of at least one of subsections (a), (b), or (c). As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Canipe v. National Loss Control Service Corp., 736 F.2d 1055, 1062 (5th Cir.1984), subsection (a) of section 324A requires some change in conditions that increases the risk of harm to the plaintiff over the level that existed before the defendant became involved. See also Turbe v. Gov't of Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 432 (3d Cir.1991) (holding under section 324A that street lamp company that failed to replace burned out globe was not liable for nighttime attack on pedestrian); Homer v. Pabst Brewing Co., 806 F.2d 119, 121-23 (7th Cir.1986) (holding under section 324A that company providing limited medical services to its own employees was not liable to unidentifiable members of the general public); Smallwood v. United States, 988 F.Supp. 1479, 1482 (S.D.Ga.1997) (holding OSHA not liable to employee who stepped in vat of molten metal that OSHA's safety inspection had failed to identify because vats were hazardous prior to the inspections); Vaughan v. Edison Co., 48 Mass.App.Ct. 225, 719 N.E.2d 520, 525 (1999) (holding power company not liable to woman hit by car in crosswalk where street lamps were not working); Wissel v. Ohio High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 78 Ohio App.3d 529, 605 N.E.2d 458, 464-67 (1992) (holding under section 324A that state high school athletic association was not liable to athlete injured in football game). In Turbe, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals cited Judge Cardozo's opinion in H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 159 N.E. 896, 898 (1928), for the proposition that [t]he court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the [defendant] had not launched a force or instrument of harm, but instead had only failed to facilitate the prevention of harm that occurred through other causes. Turbe, 938 F.2d at 432-33. ¶ 31 In the case before us, however, AGFA's installation of the Curix machine in the smaller, poorly ventilated mammography suite did create a force or instrument of harm. Technicians' purported chemical exposure would not have occurred in the absence of that installation. A jury could find that AGFA's failure to exercise reasonable care in assuring that the total installation met AGFA's own safety standards actively increased the risk of harm under section 324A subsection (a). ¶ 32 Since the three subsections are stated in the alternative, meeting any one would suffice. In the instant case, however, AGFA's actions arguably fulfilled all three. AGFA met subsection (b) when it attempted to improve the fume problem, see infra ¶ 70, by installing the vent kit. By so doing, it undertook at least some portion of the duty for disposing of chemical emissions, which the hospital originally owed to Technicians through proper operation of its ventilation system. See Canipe, 736 F.2d at 1062-63 (Subsection (b) comes into play as long as the party who owes the plaintiff a duty of care has delegated to the defendant any particular part of that duty.). ¶ 33 The record is also replete with evidence of the hospital's reliance on AGFA's procedures. As the Fifth Circuit stated in Canipe, [t]he reliance element of subsection (c) is satisfied if, in relying on the defendant's undertaking, the employer `neglect[s] or reduces[s]' its own safety program. Id. at 1063 (citation omitted). Thus, upon the facts before us there is at least a triable issue as to whether the hospital, seeing AGFA's efforts to improve the air quality, relied upon AGFA for that function and thus neglected to examine and improve its own ventilation system, fulfilling subsection(c). ¶ 34 Additionally, AGFA may be subject to liability as a supplier under section 388, which provides: One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probable use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in a manner for which and by a person for whose use it is supplied, if the supplier (a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and (b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 (1965). This court adopted section 388 as Utah law in Schneider v. Suhrmann, 8 Utah 2d 35, 37, 327 P.2d 822, 823 (1958). [14] The Schneider court stated: Plaintiff bases his claim of negligence against the supplier upon the doctrine, of which we do not doubt the correctness, that the supplier of a commodity ... is subject to liability to those whom he should expect to use it if the supplier (a) knows of its dangerous potential, (b) knows or reasonably should know that the user will not realize the danger, and (c) the supplier fails to use reasonable care to safeguard against the danger or to inform the user of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous. Id. (citing Restatement of Torts § 388). ¶ 35 In the instant case, the foundational provision of section 388 is met because the Curix processing machine was supplied by AGFA for x-ray processing use by Technicians, as installed by AGFA in the new mammography suite. AGFA's agent, Murray, testified that he had received training on the AGFA safety standards and the dangers of chemical exposure. He was also well aware of the ventilation requirements. Moreover, the instructions from AGFA product specialist George Cervenka to Murray that he test the ventilation are, inter alia, evidence of both AGFA's and Murray's awareness of a safety compliance issue. Therefore, a jury could find that the facts present here meet the requirements of subsection(a). ¶ 36 Murray arguably had no reason to believe, as required in subsection (b), that Technicians were aware of the dangers associated with the Curix machine in the mammography suite environment since they had used it for several years in other locations without problems. Moreover, Technicians' awareness of the chemical irritation that they experienced does not, without more, presuppose an understanding of the potential for serious, long-term, irreversible harm. ¶ 37 Comment b to section 388 states that [a] fortiori, one so supplying a chattel is subject to liability if by word or deed he leads those who are to use the chattel to believe it to be of a character or in a condition safer for use than he knows it to be or to be likely to be. In this case, Murray failed to protest the continued operation of the Curix. Whether his actions led the hospital and Technicians to believe that the machine was in a condition safer than he knew it was likely to be raises an issue of triable fact. ¶ 38 Additionally, Utah law as established in Schneider, goes beyond the language of the Restatements by augmenting the supplier's duty to inform with a duty to use reasonable care to safeguard against the danger. Therefore, a jury could find that AGFA breached its duty by failing to take reasonable measures to prevent the exposure. Even in the absence of that finding, there is a triable issue as to adequate warning. The dissent is accurate in its observation that AGFA communicated to the hospital the requirement for ten complete air exchanges per hour. However, that warning arguably falls short of informing the user Technicians of the facts which made the Curix machine likely to be dangerous. These facts could be found to include disclosure of the specific, serious, long-term effects of chemical exposure, since that was the real danger and the one giving rise to the alleged injuries. ¶ 39 Finally, we note the strikingly analogous legal scenario presented by Tallman v. City of Hurricane, 1999 UT 55, 985 P.2d 892. In Tallman, the city of Hurricane hired Progressive Construction Company to install water lines. Id. at ¶ 2. Progressive then subcontracted with Haukos to dig the trenches in which Progressive employees would lay the pipe. Id. Progressive had a contractual responsibility to provide all trench protection and shoring which it did not fulfill. Id. Progressive employee Tallman was killed when a rock falling from an unshored trench wall struck him on the head. Id. Progressive believed that the trenches had been dug in solid rock, but no engineer investigated to verify this. Id. at ¶ 3. ¶ 40 In our analysis, we analogized the digging of a trench to the manufacture of a chattel, with associated duties under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 389. Id. at ¶¶ 9-15. We wrote that, even if the trench was `capable of being made safe for use,' the Restatement underscores the importance of a jury deciding whether Haukos realized the unlikelihood that shoring would be completed before the trench was used by Progressive's employees. Id. at ¶ 15. ¶ 41 Section 389 states: One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another's use, knowing or having reason to know that the chattel is unlikely to be made reasonably safe before being put to a use which the supplier should expect it to be put, is subject to liability for physical harm caused by such use to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel or to be endangered by its probable use, and who are ignorant of the dangerous character of the chattel or whose knowledge thereof does not make them contributorily negligent, although the supplier has informed the other for whose use the chattel is supplied of its dangerous character. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 389 (1965). In the instant case, AGFA, like Haukos, functioned as a supplier. The hospital, like Progressive, functioned as a general contractor who employed a subcontractor but retained responsibility for the safety of the environmentin this case the ventilation which it did not fulfill. Also like Progressive, the hospital expressed a belief that the conditions were safethat the ventilation was adequatebut failed to investigate. AGFA acknowledged the potential danger to which, like Haukos, it knew that employees of its general contractor would be exposed. In Tallman, we adopted relevant Occupational Safety & Health Association (OSHA) and Utah Occupational Safety & Health Association (UOSHA) standards governing the digging of trenches as evidence of the standard of reasonable care. Id. at ¶ 11. Likewise, in the instant case, AGFA's own uncontested safety standards for installation of the Curix provide persuasive evidence of the standard of care. ¶ 42 Therefore, under section 389, the case before us presents at least two issues of triable fact. The first is whether Murray, as AGFA's agent, knew or had reason to know that the Curix was unlikely to be made reasonably safe before being put to the expected use in the mammography suite. The second is whether Technicians' experience with the Curix in its various locations, coupled with whatever general knowledge they may have had concerning the hazards of photographic chemicals, defeats their ignorance of the dangerous character of the Curix in operation under conditions of inadequate ventilation. We note the difference in the subjective standard of section 388that AGFA has no reason to believe that employees recognized the dangerous conditionand the objective standard of 389that Technicians were actually ignorant of the danger, regardless of what AGFA subjectively believed. ¶ 43 Thus, to paraphrase Tallman, even if the [Curix machine] was `capable of being made safe for use,' the Restatement underscores the importance of a jury deciding whether [AGFA] realized the unlikelihood that [the ventilation] would be [adequate] before the [Curix machine] was used by [the hospital's] employees. Id. at ¶ 15. Consequently, a jury could properly find under Tallman that AGFA owed Technicians a duty of care. ¶ 44 Therefore, we conclude that the legal framework exists to create a duty of care running from AGFA to Technicians under Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 324A, 388, and 389. The duty and AGFA's possible breach of that duty are supported by sufficient evidence to raise material issues of triable fact. We hold that determination of the factual elements necessary for duty, breach, and consequent liability are questions for the jury and reverse the summary judgment in favor of AGFA.