Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc.

230 P.3d 718 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P took the Volvo owned by his parents, Joseph Diaz, Jr. and Patricia Diaz, to a Jiffy Lube for an oil change. The oil change service purchased by P included, among other things, a check of the Volvo's tire pressure. A few weeks later, P was driving the Volvo on East Mayo Boulevard near the 56th Street intersection. It had been raining, and P lost control of the Volvo as it traveled over a wet portion of the road. The car traveled off the road and rolled over. P suffered serious injuries, including paralysis. P asserts that the worn condition of the tread on the inside portion of the Volvo's rear tires 'caused or contributed to the underlying accident.' Ps sued 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.' Ps also alleged a negligence claim against Discount Tire. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the Volvo had been taken to Discount Tire in July 2004 to have its rear tires replaced. According to Ps, 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. Ps 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. Ps then amended their complaint to add Jiffy Lube (D) as a defendant. Ps claim Jiffy Lube was negligent because the service Jiffy Lube performed on Plaintiffs' 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 Plaintiffs, 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. D moved for summary judgment asserting that it did not owe Ps a duty to inspect the inside tread of the Volvo's tires. The court eventually granted the motion. Ps appealed.