Jiffy Lube Franchisee Wins Important Lawsuit

An Arizona Jiffy Lube franchisee recently won a lawsuit that could have lasting ramifications for the entire fast lube industry.

In Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc., the Arizona Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of Phoenix Lubrication, the defendant in the case.

The case stems from a 2004 incident when Bryant Diaz, the plaintiff in the case, took a Volvo owned by his parents to a Jiffy Lube operated by Phoenix Lubrication Service for an oil change.

The oil change service purchased by Bryant included, among other things, a check of the Volvo’s tire pressure. The case log noted that Jiffy Lube does not sell or replace tires, but does offer a separate tire rotation service and inspection for an additional fee. Bryant, however, purchased only the oil change service and did not recall asking Jiffy Lube to perform any work on the Volvo’s tires or to inspect the condition of the tires.

A few weeks later, on November 21, 2004, Bryant was driving the Volvo when he lost control of the Volvo as it traveled over a wet portion of the road. The car traveled off the road and rolled over. As a result, Bryant suffered serious injuries, including paralysis.

Bryant’s lawyers asserted that the worn condition of the tread on the inside portion of the Volvo’s rear tires “caused or contributed to the underlying accident.”

On June 29, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against Ford Motor Company, Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, LLC., Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., and Discount Tire Company. The complaint contained, among other allegations, a strict products liability claim against Ford and Volvo for defective design “regarding (the Volvo’s) handling characteristics, roof structure and seatbelt restraint system.”

The plaintiffs also alleged a negligence claim against Discount Tire. Specifically, Bryant’s legal team alleged that the Volvo had been taken to Discount Tire in July 2004 to have its rear tires replaced. According to the lawsuit, Discount Tire did not properly inspect the rear tires to determine the existence of wear patterns that are symptomatic of suspension and alignment problems. This omission allowed “the (Volvo) to be released for use with a known handling problem that caused significant and dangerous wear patterns on the rear tires.” The wear pattern allegedly caused the tires to achieve less traction, making the Volvo dangerous for use on wet roads.

In March 2006, Bryant’s legal team amended their complaint to include UAG Phoenix, LLC., dba Volvo North Scottsdale (“UAG”). Based upon allegations set forth in Discount Tire’s notice of non-party at fault, Plaintiffs alleged UAG serviced their Volvo on September 29, 2004 and November 5, 2004 and negligently failed to inspect the Volvo’s tires. UAG named Jiffy Lube as a non-party at fault, alleging that Jiffy Lube “breached its duty to examine the (Volvo’s) tires in an appropriate manner” during the October 2004 oil change. Bryant’s legal team initially opposed UAG’s notice of non-party of fault and moved to strike UAG’s notice. In their motion, the plaintiffs stated that UAG “has no evidence that Jiffy Lube had a duty to inspect in the inside surface of the tires on the (Volvo).”

After the denial of their motion to strike UAG’s listing of Jiffy Lube as a non-party at fault, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Jiffy Lube as a defendant. The plaintiffs claimed Jiffy Lube was negligent because the service Jiffy Lube performed on the Volvo “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.”

According to Bryant’s legal team, 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.

Continued
[ 1 ] [ 2 ]

[Printer-friendly version]