Court Opinion

ID: 9758306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:20:29.092602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:49.208954
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing: After the foregoing opinion was filed, the parties’ motions for rehearing were granted.
Bois, J.
The court was informed that plaintiff’s action in the trial court included a claim based on negligence. No mention of a negligence count was included in either the reserved case or the briefs of the parties. Reference to such an allegation was not made at the time of oral argument and we thus had no occasion to discuss negligence in the earlier opinion.
*159“One who leases a chattel as safe for immediate use is subject to liability ... if the lessor fails to exercise reasonable care to make it safe for such use or to disclose its actual condition to those who may be expected to use it.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 408 (1965). The duty imposed is operationally related to the real life circumstances of the lessor, and thus the inspection required varies with “the length of time during which [the chattel] has been in the lessor’s possession and use.” Id., comment a, at 367.
The undisputed facts in the instant case show that the lessor served merely as a source of funds for purchase of the crane. It did not purport, and was not expected, to do anything after it received the crane other than turn it over to the construction company. The lessor never had meaningful possession and use of the chattel, and clearly had no role to play with respect to its safety.
This is not a case where the lessor can be said to be negligent because of failure to inspect the crane, LaRoeca v. Farrington, 301 N.Y. 247, 93 N.E.2d 829 (1950), or failure to assemble it properly, Wujnovich v. Equipment Corp., 54 F. Supp. 465 (W.D. Pa. 1944), or failure to make safe repairs, Scharf v. Gardner Cartage Co., 95 Ohio App. 153, 113 N.E.2d 717 (1953). The lessor here had no occasion for any of these breaches of duty.
It cannot be said that the lessor leased the chattel “as safe for immediate use.” Plaintiffs’ negligence claim must fail.

Former result affirmed; exceptions sustained.

All concurred.
April 29, 1977.