Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc.
230 P.3d 718 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A service provider's duty of care in a negligence action is limited by the scope of the service they contractually agreed to perform and does not extend to inspecting for or warning about pre-existing dangerous conditions that the provider did not create.
Facts:
- Joseph Bryant Diaz took his parents' Volvo to a Jiffy Lube for an oil change service on October 30, 2004.
- The service purchased by Bryant included a check of the vehicle's tire pressure, but he did not purchase the separate tire rotation and inspection service that Jiffy Lube offered for an additional fee.
- Jiffy Lube does not sell or replace tires.
- A few weeks later, on November 21, 2004, Bryant was driving the Volvo on a wet road when he lost control.
- The car traveled off the road and rolled over, resulting in Bryant suffering serious injuries, including paralysis.
- Plaintiffs assert that the worn condition of the tread on the inside of the Volvo's rear tires caused or contributed to the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Joseph Bryant Diaz, Joseph Diaz, Jr., and Patricia Diaz filed a complaint in a state trial court against multiple defendants, including Ford, Volvo, and Discount Tire Company.
- Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to add UAG Phoenix, LLC, a Volvo dealership, as a defendant.
- UAG named Jiffy Lube as a non-party at fault.
- Plaintiffs then amended their complaint a second time to add Jiffy Lube as a defendant, alleging negligence.
- All defendants except Jiffy Lube were eventually dismissed from the action.
- Jiffy Lube filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it did not owe Plaintiffs a legal duty to inspect the tires.
- The trial court granted Jiffy Lube's motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Arizona (the intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a vehicle service provider, hired to perform a specific service like an oil change that includes checking tire pressure, have a legal duty to inspect for and warn about unrelated, pre-existing dangerous conditions, such as worn tire treads, that it did not create?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Gemmill
No. A vehicle service provider hired for a specific task does not have a legal duty to inspect for and warn about unrelated, pre-existing dangers it did not create. The court determines the existence of a duty by analyzing two factors: the relationship between the parties and public policy. Here, the relationship was defined by the contract for an oil change and tire pressure check, which did not include a tire safety inspection. The scope of the duty does not extend beyond the scope of this undertaking. Public policy does not support imposing a broader duty, because Jiffy Lube did not create the risk posed by the worn tires; it merely failed to discover a pre-existing condition. Finally, while an alleged industry standard may be relevant to determining a breach of duty, it cannot create a legal duty where one does not otherwise exist.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that the scope of a defendant's duty in a negligence case is often defined by the scope of their undertaking. It prevents the expansion of tort liability for nonfeasance (failure to act) where a party has not created the risk and has not specifically agreed to protect against it. The ruling provides clarity for service industries, protecting them from potentially limitless liability for failing to discover and warn of any and all potential hazards on a customer's property. The case establishes a clear precedent that custom or industry standards cannot, by themselves, create a legal duty, which remains a question of law for the court.
Unlock the full brief for Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc.