Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-6029 Civil WILLIAM OYLER AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON LINDA OYLER, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PLAINTIFFS : PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : KEYSTONE FLEET SERVICES, INC., : DEFENDANT : : V. : : YARD TRUCK SPECIALISTS, INC. : AND TRUCK PARTS PLUS, INC., : ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS : 06-6029 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT YARD TRUCK SPECIALISTS, INC. BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND EBERT, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., December 8, 2008:-- On May 1, 2006, plaintiff, William Oyler, was operating a “yard truck” leased by additional defendant Yard Truck Specialists, Inc., to his employer Exel Logistics. The truck is a small tractor that is used to move trailers at Exel’s facility. It was shipped from the manufacturer to Yard Truck with a heating/air conditioning system controlled by a cable-operated control valve located on the dashboard. Yard Truck replaced the cable- operated valve with a manual spigot valve because the cable-operated system failed. The spigot valve was mounted on the floor of the cab and had to be manually turned to adjust the heating and cooling system. On May 1, 2006, plaintiff claims that he turned on the valve, it began to leak, and he was sprayed with scolding hot antifreeze, 06-6029 CIVIL TERM sustaining burns. A week earlier the manual spigot valve had been leaking, and on th April 27, an employee of Keystone Fleet Services replaced it with a spigot valve purchased from Truck Parts Plus, Inc. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Keystone claiming that it was negligent in the installation of the replacement valve and it was that negligence which caused his injuries. Keystone denied any negligence and joined Yard Truck Specialists, Inc., as an additional defendant. Keystone claims that the installation of the spigot valve system by Yard Truck was negligent because the positioning of the valve caused plaintiff to have to awkwardly contort his body to turn it which resulted in his breaking it by turning it too far. Yard Truck joined the spigot supplier, Truck Parts Plus, Inc., as an additional defendant. Yard Truck filed a motion for summary judgment which was briefed and argued on December 3, 2008. It argues that the evidence “indicates that the faulty valve itself, rather than any actions by [itself], caused Plaintiff’s injuries – there is no evidence that the location of the valve affected the likelihood of its failure.” Keystone has not filed an expert report and Yard Truck argues that without one there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that it was negligent in relocating the spigot valve away from the dashboard. First of all, whether the spigot valve that was replaced by Keystone on April 27, 2006, was faulty or whether it was installed in a negligent manner has not been established. If neither was the case, then Keystone maintains that it was the positioning of the manual spigot valve, which Yard Truck installed to replace the cable-operated -2- 06-6029 CIVIL TERM valve, that caused plaintiff to have to contort his body to turn it resulting in plaintiff turning it too far causing it to break and spraying him with antifreeze. This is not a case of presuming negligence from the happening of an accident, but of inferring negligence from the circumstances from which Keystone maintains it arose. Assuming that Keystone can prove those facts, which are in dispute, the situation is akin to cases where a supermarket stacks items on a shelf that are too high and not readily reachable thereby subjecting a customer to a risk that an item will fall Dougherty v. The Great and injure the customer who reaches for it. As set forth in Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 221 Pa. Super. 221 (1972): The very reason for the need to exercise due care in stacking is that the initial or subsequent disarray may cause an item to fall. It is within the province of the jury to find that it is reasonably foreseeable that the use of high shelving can be a contributing factor in causing disarray in the fall of an item from that high a shelf. Likewise, Yard Truck needed to exercise due care in locating the spigot valve in a reconfigured heating/air conditioning system in a location whereby its use would not place a driver in a position in which it was reasonably foreseeable that he would turn it too far and break it. No expert testimony is needed for a jury to determine if Yard Truck’s conduct was negligent. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2008, the motion of additional IS DENIED. defendant, Yard Truck Specialist, Inc., for summary judgment, -3- 06-6029 CIVIL TERM By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. David Lutz, Esquire For Plaintiffs Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire For Keystone Fleet Services, Inc. David K. Brennan, Esquire For Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. Peter P. Speaker, Esquire For Trucks Parts Plus, Inc. :sal -4- WILLIAM OYLER AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON LINDA OYLER, : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PLAINTIFFS : PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : KEYSTONE FLEET SERVICES, INC., : DEFENDANT : : V. : : YARD TRUCK SPECIALISTS, INC. : AND TRUCK PARTS PLUS, INC., : ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS : 06-6029 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT YARD TRUCK SPECIALISTS, INC. BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND EBERT, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2008, the motion of additional IS DENIED. defendant, Yard Truck Specialist, Inc., for summary judgment, By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. 06-6029 CIVIL TERM David Lutz, Esquire For Plaintiffs Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire For Keystone Fleet Services, Inc. David K. Brennan, Esquire For Yard Truck Specialists, Inc. Peter P. Speaker, Esquire For Trucks Parts Plus, Inc. :sal -2-