Ever sell something of yours? You're on the hook for it forever.

[mikea]

The facts of the case are pretty simple. May Trucking had a Paccar tractor-trailer that it drove about 500,000 miles over six years. Then it sold it to another party, who in turn sold it to Lewis Farms. About a year after May had gotten rid of the truck, the wheels came off on the highway due to an axle failure. They hit a car, which then crashed and burned, and the car's owner, Jerome Bailey, was badly hurt. Bailey sued Paccar, Lewis, and May. His allegations against May were that it had negligently failed to maintain the axle, and that that failure is what caused the awful accident.

May said it couldn't possible be liable to Bailey, because it sold the truck a year before the axle failure. Lewis was responsible for the safety of the vehicle it was operating, said May, and so May should be off the hook to Bailey. May moved to dismiss the case, arguing that even if it were negligent, it had no duty to Bailey, and that the harm Bailey suffered wasn't reasonably foreseeable when May owned the tractor-trailer.

No way, said the court. Just because Lewis had a duty to Bailey doesn't mean that May was relieved of its obligation to act reasonably in maintaining the truck. And of course the harm could be reasonably foreseeable -- if you let your truck run down without proper maintenance, it's no surprise if somebody gets hurt in an accident as a result.

http://bojack.org/2007/10/your_old_junk_could_come_back_1.html

So I guess if the new owner of your old Taurus fills it up with 1500 pounds of black dirt and tows his 4500 pound trailer at the same time, you're liable if the brakes can't stop it.

(Actually if this was in Cook County the judge would have just said that the trucking company can't be off the hook because the other two won't have enough money to pay the full lottery award.)

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

So I guess if the new owner of your old Taurus fills it up with 1500 pounds of black dirt and tows his 4500 pound trailer at the same time, you're liable if the brakes can't stop it.

(Actually if this was in Cook County the judge would have just said that the trucking company can't be off the hook because the other two won't have enough money to pay the full lottery award.)

I'm not sure at all of the following, but I seem to remember that in product-liability suits, chain of ownership liability is only possible in those situations where the parties have sold/transferred the product in the course of business.

I don't agree with this system of transferred liability, but at least I don't think Average Joe would be liable for selling his own personal car. Again, these are only vague memories.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Does Oregon have a vehicle inspection law? Did this vehicle pass it? Who was the intermediary and why was that intermediary not named?

This writeup is a little misleading, IMO. The facts are not clearly outlined in it. Furthermore, the decision only says the plaintiff has the ability to investigate whether the seller has any responsibility, not that the seller is not responsible because it no longer owned the vehicle. Perhaps there are some "latent defect" issues about which the seller could have/should have known. We're not talking brakes here, we're talking metallurgy of the axle and the seller may have concealed damage to that area in some fraudulent way.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

A local jury decided something very similar here a few yrs ago! I was disgusted! The tires had been taken off a truck that had been sent for scrap to a wrecking yard and had no treads left!
The jury saw the crippled man, heard the sob story and decided the wealthy (but completely innocent) company should pay this poor family. Complete injustice.

 

[SCCutler]

Folks, chill. This is not a verdict of a jury or trial court, it is a ruling on either a Motion to Dismiss, or a Motion for Summary Judgment. They could quite likely end up out of the case later on, after discovery and the evidence make clearer the sequence of events.

 

[KennyFlys]

Folks, chill. This is not a verdict of a jury or trial court, it is a ruling on either a Motion to Dismiss, or a Motion for Summary Judgment. They could quite likely end up out of the case later on, after discovery and the evidence make clearer the sequence of events.

True, but far too often juries act on emotion. It's the human side Lady Justice can't seem to offset. Actually, unless there's something significant in the evidence I have to wonder about the judge's decision.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

True, but far too often juries act on emotion. It's the human side Lady Justice can't seem to offset. Actually, unless there's something significant in the evidence I have to wonder about the judge's decision.

Ok. A few points.

This was a Motion to Dismiss. I haven't read beyond the first paragraph of the opinion, but ALL a plaintiff has to do to survive a defendant's motion to dismiss is allege (note that allegations don't have to be true) all of the required elements of a claim.

In a negligence claim, here are the basic elements:
1) A duty (don't sell trucks with broken axles);
2) Breach of that duty (you did sell a truck with a broken axle);
3) Proximate cause (your actions were caused the breach); and
4) Actual injury (i.e., a harm, not necessarily physical).

Thus, all that the plaintiff has to do is allege facts that fit the above equation. The trial court is required by law to assume that the plaintiff's allegations are completely true, no matter how outrageous they are. Thus, a motion to dismiss is rarely successful, and is usually a waste of the defendant's and the court's time.

In my opinion, that is a big problem in our legal system. I can make something up about you, and as long as it fits some legal theory, I can drag you into court, and survive the motion to dismiss. You then have to go through the discovery process (i.e., depositions - $$$$). Then, you get to file for summary judgment, which is when we get to through the BS claims out.

And trust me, from the court's perspective, nothing feels better than getting rid of BS claims.

Regardless, everybody always yells "rabble rabble rabble, that GD'd judge is an idiot in the plaintiff's pocket." That is entirely untrue - the motion to dismiss is largely symbolic and rarely successful, because that is the way the law is written. We wouldn't have much in the way of judges if said judges don't follow the law, would we?

 

[KennyFlys]

<snip>

Thus, all that the plaintiff has to do is allege facts that fit the above equation. The trial court is required by law to assume that the plaintiff's allegations are completely true, no matter how outrageous they are. Thus, a motion to dismiss is rarely successful, and is usually a waste of the defendant's and the court's time.

<snip>

I agree. I only have questions on what existed in the claim to persuade the judge to not consider dismissal.

But, you have to admit there are just as many activist judges in tort claims as there are in other types of litigation.

 

[mikea]

A local jury decided something very similar here a few yrs ago! I was disgusted! The tires had been taken off a truck that had been sent for scrap to a wrecking yard and had no treads left!
The jury saw the crippled man, heard the sob story and decided the wealthy (but completely innocent) company should pay this poor family. Complete injustice.

Of course, SOMEBODY has to pay for the poor man!

 

[Richard]

As Is, Where Is.

 

[poadeleted20]

For most of us, who do not sell planes for a living, the only implied warranty is "fitness for a particular purpose." That means if someone says, "I'm looking for a plane that can fly non-stop NY-Chicago with four adults and baggage with IFR reserves," and you sell that person your Cessna 172, you may have to take the plane back and refund his money when the buyer discovers it won't haul that much that far. The implied warranty of "merchantability" (that is, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used") does not apply to sales between private parties. BTW, the "fitness" test, according to Hamilton*, is airworthiness per the FAR's.

However, even between private parties, the question of misrepresentation of an item can end up in court. If you tell the buyer that the airplane has no damage history, or that there is no corrosion, or some such thing, then you are on the hook for that representation. If the buyer later discovers that the airplane was sold other than as represented, the buyer is entitled to remedy (generally either cancellation of the sale and return of monies/items, repair of the defect at seller's expense, or cash to the buyer to cover the reduced value of the item).

Further, if you sell someone an airplane with a known defect, and do not disclose the defect, and the buyer is injured as a result of the defect, you could be liable for damages (see the David's quotation of the negligence test, post #7, above).

However, if you develop a proper sales contract (and that, my friends, requires a lawyer, not just a boiler-plate download off the internet), and the buyer signs that s/he understands that the aircraft is sold as is, where is, subject to buyer's inspection before closing the sale, with no other representations or warraties (express or implied), then the buyer has little recourse on either count unless s/he can prove willful deception on the seller's part (and that ain't easy).

*Hamilton, J. Scott. "Practical Aviation Law, 3rd Edition," ISU Press, Ames IA, 2001, p. 173.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Does Oregon have a vehicle inspection law? Did this vehicle pass it?

Being a commercial vehicle, federal law requires annual inspections.

May Trucking is a large company (~2,000 trucks IIRC) and if they didn't have a program in place for ensuring those annual inspections were performed, they'd surely lose their authority. Getting a DOT number isn't all that unlike getting a Part 135 certificate.

FWIW, May's trucks also have the "Oregon Trusted Carrier Partner" plates on them. I'm not sure what hoops they have to go through to get those.