Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-5067 CivilDARREN GARZA AND BARBARA GARZA, PLAINTIFFS MACK TRUCKS, INC., AND C.B. MILK SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANTS IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-5067 CIVIL TERM MOTION OF DEFENDANT, C.B. MILK SERVICES, INC. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., August 25, 2003:-- On July 19, 2000, plaintiffs, Darren Garza and Barbara Garza filed a complaint against defendants, Mack Trucks, Inc., and C.B. Milk Services, Inc. There is evidence in the record that plaintiff, Darren Garza, was employed as a truck mechanic at Clause Trucking, Inc., in Carlisle, Cumberland County. On February 22, 1999, he was repairing the back-up-lights on a diesel truck with a manual transmission. The truck was manufactured by Mack Trucks, Inc., owned by C.B. Milk Services, Inc., and leased to Clause Trucking, Inc. A Clause Trucking, Inc. ca-warker standing outside the truck turned on the ignition key to provide electricity for plaintiff to test the lights. The engine started and the truck moved backward causing injury to plaintiff. In their complaint, plaintiffs aver causes of action against Mack Trucks, Inc. for strict liability, breach of warranty and negligence. They allege that the truck was 00-5067 CIVIL TERM defectively designed and manufactured and was without sufficient and adequate warnings because it lacked an inexpensive device that would have prevented it from starting while in gear in the type of situation that resulted in the injuries. There is evidence in the record that such a device, a clutch safety switch, would have cost less than fifty dollars and would not have impacted on the performance of the truck. Plaintiffs aver in their complaint a cause of action for negligence against C.B. Milk Services, Inc. They allege that defendant, as the owner and lessor of the truck, knew or should have known of the defective condition that resulted in the injuries to him, and that it failed to correct and/or adequately warn him of that condition. C.B. Milk Services, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment which was briefed and argued on July 23, 2002.4 In deciding the motion, "we must view the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party." Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1998). Plaintiffs argue in their brief that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because they have "established that the Defendant C.B. Milk Services, Inc. owes a duty of care to others to keep its vehicles free from unreasonable dangers; and 2) there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Defendant C.B. Milk Services, ~ A motion for summary judgment by Mack Truck, Inc., was briefed and argued on the same date. That motion was denied on our finding that the alleged design defect made the truck unreasonably dangerous. -2- 00-5067 CIVIL TERM Inc. breached that duty." J. Edward Clouse, a co-owner with his wife of both C.B. Milk Services, Inc. and Clouse Trucking, Inc., was deposed and testified: Q How long have you been driving Mack trucks? A Let's see, I think the first one we bought was probably 1969 - oh, no, no, no, I'm sorry, 1962. Q Do you still drive trucks? A Yes. Q Do you still know how? A Yes. Q Have you driven the newer Mack trucks? A Yes. Q What's the newest one you purchased? A 2001. Q That's new enough. A Pretty new. It's too costly. Q What's a new one cost? A 80,000 plus. Q Were you aware in February of 1999 that if you parked a Mack truck R model in reverse, turned the key to the right one click and then another click that the truck would go in reverse? A Yes. Q When did that knowledge come to you? Any idea? A No. Q It's just something you know? A It depends on a lot of situations. It won't always. Q From what you have learned about this case from your own investigation, whatever that was, and from hearing the witnesses testify, you understand that's what happened here; is that correct? A Yes, Q That the key was turned to the second click, we'll call it, and the truck then, because it was in reverse, went in reverse? A Yes, Q That knowledge, though, is something that you came to possess sometime prior to that time and you're not really sure when; is that fair? A Again, it goes back to what the situation is, you know. If the brake is applied - which one person testified that he always puts the brake on because he's in a different area of the service area. So it depends on what you want to do with the truck, what you do with it when you bring it in the garage. You can't have the brakes on if you're coming in to adjust the -3- 00-5067 CIVIL TERM brakes. Q I'm sorry, you can or cannot? A You cannot apply the brakes and have the brake on when you have it in the garage to adjust the brakes because the brakes must be released. Q So in other words, if the truck is in the garage and the intent is you're going to work on the brakes, you don't put the emergency brake on? A Correct. Q So under those circumstances if the truck were parked in reverse - manual transmission but in reverse, turn that key to the second click, the truck is going backwards, isn't it? A Yes. Q Are you aware of any Mack trucks that have a device either installed by the manufacturer or someone else that prevent that situation from occurring? A No. (Emphasis added.) Noting this testimony and citing Delair v. McAdoo, 324 Pa. 392 (1936), and Evans v. Goldfine Truck Rental Service Co., Inc., 241 Pa. Super. 329 (1976), plaintiffs argue in their brief: Despite knowing that the Truck could start while in gear, C.B. Milk failed to take steps to prevent the Truck from posing an unreasonable danger to the public. As a result, a jury could find C.B. Milk liable for breaching its legal duty to keep the Truck free of unreasonable danger. In Delair, a tire on defendant's vehicle blew out resulting in an accident with plaintiff's vehicle. The jury found in favor of plaintiff. The trial court denied a motion of defendant for judgment n.o.v. The Superior Court, concluding that there was sufficient evidence that defendant was driving on a worn out tire, upheld the denial of the judgment n.o.v., stating "the law requires drivers and owners of motor vehicles to know the condition of those parts which are likely to become dangerous where the flaws or -4- 00-5067 CIVIL TERM faults would be disclosed by a reasonable inspection. It will assume they do know of the dangers ascertainable by such examination." In Evans, appellant was injured while loading cardboard into a trailer owned by his employer, Frankford Paper Box Company. Appellant was standing at the back of the trailer when a co-worked hooked up a tractor to the trailer and started to pull the trailer away causing him to be thrown into a pit in front of the loading platform. As he attempted to get out the tractor-trailer rolled back, pinning his legs and resulting in injury. Appellant brought an action against Goldfine Truck Rental Service Co., Inc. and Leonard and Anna Goldfine as owners and lessors of the tractor. The case was tried before a jury with the court directing a verdict in favor of each defendant. The Superior Court, contrary to the trial court, agreed with appellant that there was evidence that the co-worker applied the tractor's brakes, and that despite this the tractor-trailer rolled back. Thus, a jury could have reasonably inferred there was some sort of a defect in the tractor's brake system. In order to make out a prima facie case of negligence, appellant had to present evidence that defendants owed him a duty, breached that duty, and the breach was the proximate cause of his injury. In the lease to Frankford Paper Box Company, the Goldfines contracted to maintain the tractor in "good repair" and to complete repairs within a reasonable time. The lease prohibited Frankford or its drivers from making repairs. In upholding the directed verdict, the Court stated: Lessors and owners of motor vehicles may be liable for personal injuries suffered by third parties because of defects in the vehicles. However, their duty is limited to defects known or discoverable by reasonable -5- 00-5067 CIVIL TERM inspection. Here, as noted above, there is no evidence that Goldfine knew of a defect in the brakes before the accident, or of what the defect was, or whether the defect was discoverable upon reasonable inspection. (Citations omitted.) In the case sub judice, on the strict liability claim against Mack Trucks, Inc., this court has reached a threshold determination that the truck was unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiffs, to recover against that defendant, must prove that (1) the truck was defective, (2) the defect existed when it left Mack Trucks, Inc., and (3) the defect caused the harm. See, Schindler v. $ofarnor, Inc., 774 A.2d 765 (Pa. Super. 2001). In the negligence claim against C.B. Milk Services, Inc., plaintiffs are maintaining that, as the owner and lessor of the truck, defendant had a duty to recognize and correct and/or warn a user of the alleged defect in design. Even though J. Edward Clouse knew that if you parked the truck in reverse and turned the key to the right one click and then another click that the truck would go into reverse, that alleged design defect did not create a duty on the owner/lessor to install a clutch safety switch and/or warn of a danger if the truck was used as it was in this case? The law does not put the owner/lessor in a position of having to make a judgment as to whether Mack Trucks, Inc. has defectively designed the truck. The duty imposed on an owner/lessor as described in Delair and Evans is to maintain and keep a vehicle in repair to prevent faults discoverable upon reasonable inspection from causing injury to another. 2 Clouse testified that he did not know whether any Mack Trucks had such a device. -6- 00-5067 CIVIL TERM Because defendant owed no duty to plaintiffs, the motion of defendant for summary judgment will be granted. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, the motion of defendant C.B. Milk Services, Inc. for summary judgment, IS GRANTED. By the Court, David B. Dowling, Esquire For Plaintiffs Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire For Mack Trucks, Inc. Edward E. Knauss, IV, Esquire For C.B. Milk Services, Inc. :sal Edgar B. Bayley, J. -7- DARREN GARZA AND BARBARA GARZA, PLAINTIFFS MACK TRUCKS, INC., AND C.B. MILK SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANTS IN RE: AND NOW, this IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-5067 CIVIL TERM MOTION OF DEFENDANT, C.B. MILK SERVICES, INC. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT day of August, 2003, the motion of defendant C.B. Milk Services, Inc. for summary judgment, IS GRANTED. By the Court, David B. Dowling, Esquire For Plaintiffs Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire For Mack Trucks, Inc. Edward E. Knauss, IV, Esquire For C.B. Milk Services, Inc. :sal Edgar B. Bayley, J.