Court Opinion

ID: 9456447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:53:23.270651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:59.020689
License: Public Domain

*311SEITZ, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I would affirm the order of the district court.
The two plaintiffs in this case each seek to recover damages for their personal injuries, claiming that Texaco is liable under the following four theories: (1) breach of warranty with respect to the sale of the delivery van; (2) breach of warranty with respect to the repairs which were made on the van before the sale; (3) vicarious liability for Hin-man’s negligence in repairing the van; and (4) negligence in permitting an unqualified person such as Hinman to perform repairs at its service station. Although this diversity action was brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the accident occurred, it is not disputed that the issue of Texaco’s liability is governed by the substantive law of New Jersey.
Plaintiffs first claim that Hinman warranted that the van was in good running condition and had no mechanical defects; at trial, they presented evidence which indicated that Hinman expressly told them that the van was “in A-l shape” and that the brakes in particular were in good working order. I agree with the majority that no actual agency relationship existed between Texaco and Hinman with respect to the sale of used vehicles, but I disagree that the district court erred in granting Texaco a directed verdict on the issues of apparent agency and agency by estoppel. The following statement of New Jersey law is pertinent to the disposition of this case;
“One who represents that another is his agent and thereby causes a third person justifiably to rely upon the care or skill of such apparent agent is subject to liability to the third person for harm caused by the lack of care or skill of the one appearing to be servant as if he were such. Restatement, Agency, par. 267. * * * This rule normally applies where the plaintiff has submitted himself to the care or protection of an apparent servant in response to an apparent invitation from the defendant to enter into such relations with such servant. A manifestation of authority constitutes an invitation to deal with such servant and to enter into relations with him which are consistent with the apparent authority.”
Elger v. Lindsay, 71 N.J.Super. 82, 176 A.2d 309, 312 (Law Div.1961) (emphasis added); see N. Rothenberg & Son, Inc. v. Nako, 49 N.J.Super. 372, 139 A.2d 783 (App.Div.1958); Price v. Old Label Liquor Co., 23 N.J.Super. 165, 92 A.2d 806 (App.Div.1952). Assuming that a person of ordinary prudence would be entitled to believe that Hinman was Texaco’s agent in the sale of gasoline, oil, tires, and other items which are ordinarily sold at a filling station, it does not follow that a reasonable man would believe that Hinman’s apparent authority extended to the sale of used cars. Such a belief would, in my view, be unreasonable. Moreover, in the absence of an appearance of agency, Texaco’s mere acquiescence in the sale cannot be said to create an agency by estoppel. Where the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion on the issue of agency, that issue must be decided by the trial court, not the jury. Harvey v. Craw, 110 N.J.Super. 68, 264 A.2d 448 (App.Div.1970).
I believe that a directed verdict was equally proper on plaintiffs’ second and third theories of liability, involving the repairs which Hinman performed on the van. In Wallach v. Williams, 52 N.J. 504, 246 A.2d 713 (1968), the Supreme Court of New Jersey expressly reserved decision on whether an oil company which creates the impression by signs and advertising that it operates a service station can be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor who operates the station. The facts of the present case also make it unnecessary to decide this issue. As both the majority and the district court have indicated, the repair work was purely incidental to the sale of the vehicle. Gizzi quoted Hinman as offering not only to *312sell the van for $400 but also to replace the master cylinder and muffler, repair the engine, repaint the vehicle, and generally “put it in A-l shape” at no extra charge. I agree with the district judge that, considering plaintiffs’ evidence in its most favorable light, the sale was strictly a personal transaction and Hin-man made the repairs in his individual capacity simply to induce the sale. Particularly since the cost of the repairs was absorbed into the overall sales price, which was payable directly to Hinman, in my view, no reasonable man could conclude that' Hinman was acting as a servant or agent of Texaco.
Finally, I believe that a directed verdict was proper on plaintiffs’ claim that Texaco negligently permitted Hinman to perform automobile repairs even though he was unqualified and incompetent to do such work. Plaintiffs’ only evidence was that Texaco itself did not give Hin-man any specialized training. They produced no evidence to show either Hin-man’s incompetence or Texaco’s negligence.