Vehicle Service Provider's Duty Of Care To Customers Narrowed To Limit Liability For Malfunctioning Vehicle Parts
July, 2010
by Todd M. Murphy and Daniel R. Bryer
With increasing frequency, courts have been called upon to decide the extent of a service provider’s liability for damages arising out of the malfunction of a vehicle part which is only tangentially connected to the parts serviced. Most recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc. d/b/a Jiffy Lube, 230 P.3d 718 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010), and held that a quick oil change service provider did not have a duty to examine the tires on its customers’ vehicles for wear, despite the fact that a tire pressure check was preformed as a part of each oil change.
Facts
In August 2004, plaintiff brought his Volvo to a Jiffy Lube for an oil change. Jiffy Lube does not sell or replace tires, but does offer a separate tire rotation service and inspection for an additional fee. Plaintiff purchased the standard oil change service, which included, among other things, a check of the Volvo’s tire pressure. Plaintiff did not request a tire rotation, nor did he ask Jiffy Lube to inspect the condition of the tires. A few weeks after the oil change, plaintiff lost control of the Volvo as he drove over a wet portion of the road, causing the vehicle to veer toward and embankment and role over. As a result of the accident, plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including paralysis. Plaintiff claimed that a worn condition of the tread on the inside portion of the Volvo’s rear tires “caused or contributed to the underlying accident.”
Plaintiff sued various defendants including Jiffy Lube, alleging that Jiffy Lube was negligent because the oil change service preformed “included or should have included a check of the [Volvo]'s tire pressure, an examination of the tires on the [Volvo] and notification of the tire wear.” Plaintiff specifically claimed that when the Volvo was parked over the service bay, the Jiffy Lube technician underneath the Volvo who was changing the oil should have observed portions of the Volvo's rear tire treads. Jiffy Lube moved for summary judgment, asserting that it did not have a duty to inspect the inside tread of the Volvo’s tires. The court granted Jiffy Lube’s motion, holding that no legal duty was owed to plaintiff with regard to the allegedly worn tires.
Analysis
The Arizona Appellate Court affirmed, holding that Jiffy Lube did not create the dangerous tire tread condition and that no duty could be imposed based upon Jiffy Lube’s limited contractual agreement. In rendering this decision, the court first analyzed whether the relationship between the parties imposed a duty upon Jiffy Lube to inspect plaintiff’s tires. The court initially noted that the parties’ relationship was not recognized at common law as imposing a legal duty. As to their contractual relationship, the court found that the oil change agreement included only a check of the air pressure in the Volvo's tires, not an overall tire inspection. Based on these terms, the court disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that the parties’ contractual relationship imposed a duty upon Jiffy Lube of reasonable care to inspect the tires. The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that because the contract included a check of each tire’s air pressure, the contract impliedly contained an undertaking by Jiffy Lube to inspect the condition of the Volvo’s tires. The court held that such a finding would impermissibly expand Jiffy Lube’s duty beyond the contractually agreed upon services.
The appellate court next turned to the issue of whether public policy considerations imposed a duty of reasonable care to inspect the vehicles tires. While noting that such considerations may support the recognition of a duty of care, the court found that neither statutory nor common law supported the imposition of a duty upon Jiffy Lube. The court held that Jiffy Lube did not create the allegedly dangerous tire tread that ultimately contributed to plaintiff’s injuries and that no duty existed in light of Jiffy Lube’s limited contractual obligations. On this point, the court found that checking the air pressure and adjusting the inflation to a recommended pressure range is distinct from inspecting the tread and evaluating the safety of the tires. Thus, the court concluded, the risk posed by the Volvo’s worn tires was beyond the scope of Jiffy Lube’s undertaking, which involved merely checking each tire’s air pressure, adjusting the pressure as necessary, and performing other non-tire-related services.
For other recent decisions involving a vehicle service provider’s liability for damages arising under similar circumstances, see Thom v. Apple Valley Ford Inc., 2010 WL 88859 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (service center not liable for damage to vehicle caused by lack of four-wheel-drive transfer fluid where “Quick Lane” oil change purchased by customer involved inspection of only “top-side” fluid levels); Duncan v. M & M Auto Service, Inc., 898 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (automobile shop that installed compressed natural gas system in van was not liable for explosion caused by malfunctioning “check valve” where shop contracted merely to install, not maintain system). See also Durance v. Minit Man Oil, No. 09-529-E (Tex. 148th Dist. 2010) (settlement of claims against quick change oil provider for injuries resulting from tire blowout following provider’s failure to inspect customers’ tires during routine oil change).
Learning Points:
- Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication will obviously affect the merit of certain liability defenses raised by vehicle service providers, and especially for those clients that insure “quick change” oil, lube, and service retailers. In those cases, the focus of the defense will always be an examination of whether the work undertaken by the provider was performed adequately and/or within the standard of care. However, Diaz, as well as cases such as Thom, and Duncan may allow the defense to initially limit a provider’s duty based upon contract or upon the initial request of the customer. Defendants should seek to limit those duties by motion as early as possible.
Backed by these recent holdings, defendants may avoid certain defense costs from the outset of a case, limiting the examination of their clients to what was done, as opposed to what should have been done. Utilization of these holdings may allow defendants to avoid expert examination as to whether, for example, the wear on certain tire treads was a sign of likely future tire failure. - Defense clients should take notice of the aforementioned holdings, and utilize them, with counsel’s assistance, to ensure that vehicle service contracts and invoices: 1) adequately express the tasks to be undertaken by the technicians, and 2) provide notice to the customer that, if they desire additional inspections or work, they must expressly request such additional work.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2010v2) 2010 Volume 2 Table of Contents
