Jiffy Lube Lawsuit
(Continued)

All of the defendants except Jiffy Lube were eventually dismissed from the action. In July 2008, Jiffy Lube filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it did not owe the plaintiffs a duty to inspect the inside tread of the Volvo’s tires. The court denied Jiffy Lube’s motion on the basis that it was not timely filed. The court stated, however, that at trial it would likely “adopt Jiffy Lube’s position that it did not owe a legal duty to (plaintiffs).” Consequently, both parties agreed that the motion for summary judgment should be submitted to the court for reconsideration. The court agreed to reconsider the motion and then granted it. Final judgment was entered in January 2009 in favor of Jiffy Lube.

The case was appealed, and the appellate court again ruled in favor of Jiffy Lube.

“To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages,” noted Sheldon Weisberg and Philip Hall, the presiding judges in the decision.

The judges also noted that: “We disagree with plaintiffs that their contractual relationship with Jiffy Lube extended to a safety inspection of the Volvo’s tires such that Jiffy Lube owed a duty of reasonable care to inspect the tires. The oil change agreement between Jiffy Lube and plaintiffs included only a check of the air pressure in the Volvo’s tires, not an overall tire inspection.

“Plaintiffs further argue that because performance of the oil change contract required Jiffy Lube technicians to work underneath the Volvo with the ability to see portions of the rear tires, and 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. We do not agree. Such an expansion of Jiffy Lube’s duty beyond the contractually agreed upon services is not warranted.”

The judges cited a similar decision by the Arizona Supreme Court that absolved a dealership of liability arising from a mechanic who performed warranty work on a vehicle without noting a dangerous condition on the vehicle.

The court found that Jiffy Lube “did not create the risk inherent in excessive or uneven tread wear,” and that, “because Jiffy Lube did not undertake, either contractually or voluntarily, to inspect and warn plaintiffs regarding the safety of the tires, no such duty is imposed on Jiffy Lube.” And, “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.”

Bryant’s attorneys had also argued that an industry standard exists for auto maintenance businesses to inspect tires. The court did not agree.

“Finally, we address plaintiffs’ argument that a duty arose in this case ‘because the standard in the industry called for service (and) maintenance businesses like Jiffy Lube to inspect all visible vehicle components for hazards during the performance of their service work.’ The existence of a duty is a threshold legal question that must be determined by the court…if Jiffy Lube did not owe plaintiffs a duty to inspect the tires for dangerous wear, the standard of care and the potential breach thereof are irrelevant.”

In concluding their decision, the judges wrote: “Jiffy Lube did not create the risk resulting from allegedly worn tires and did not undertake to inspect the tires of plaintiffs’ Volvo. We decline to extend Jiffy Lube’s duty to include a safety inspection of the tires.”

Back
[ 1 ] [ 2 ]

[Printer-friendly version]