Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Lubbock County Hospital District

Texas Supreme Court
42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 280, 987 S.W.2d 50, 1998 Tex. LEXIS 164 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Texas common law does not recognize an implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance for services where other adequate legal remedies, such as negligence or breach of contract, are available to the consumer. A mere breach of contract, without more, does not constitute a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA).

Facts:

Lubbock County Hospital District (UMC) and another hospital established a program called CareLink for emergency patient transport.
CareLink contracted with Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. (Rocky Mountain) to provide operational support, including pilots and mechanics.
Under the contract, Rocky Mountain was solely responsible for conducting all helicopter refueling operations at UMC's helipad.
On June 21, 1990, a Rocky Mountain mechanic, Tom Kitterman, performed a refueling of a helicopter.
Kitterman had over 28 years of experience as a mechanic but had never used the UMC refueler before and had received minimal training on it.
There was evidence that Kitterman failed to turn off the refueler after completing the task.
More than nine hours later, a flight crew discovered that approximately 1,000 gallons of jet fuel had spilled onto UMC's property.
As a result of the spill, UMC was required to undertake a costly environmental cleanup, with total expenses projected to exceed $300,000.

Procedural Posture:

UMC sued Rocky Mountain and three other companies in a Texas state trial court, asserting claims for negligence and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA).
UMC settled with all defendants except for Rocky Mountain before trial.
The case against Rocky Mountain proceeded to a jury trial.
The jury found that Rocky Mountain's negligence was a proximate cause of the fuel spill and that Rocky Mountain had also engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice under the DTPA.
The trial court rendered judgment for UMC based on the DTPA finding, awarding $486,235.59, which included attorneys’ fees.
Rocky Mountain (as appellant) appealed the judgment to the Texas court of appeals.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Rocky Mountain had waived its argument that no implied warranty existed.
Rocky Mountain (as petitioner) sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.

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 Texas law recognize a common-law implied warranty that services incidental to helicopter maintenance, such as refueling, will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, such that a failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Spector

No. Texas law does not recognize an implied warranty that services incidental to helicopter maintenance will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner where other adequate remedies are available. The court reasoned that an implied warranty for services arises under common law only when public policy mandates it due to a 'demonstrated, compelling need.' Such a need does not exist when other adequate remedies, like a negligence claim, are available to the consumer. In this case, UMC successfully pursued a negligence claim against Rocky Mountain, proving that its remedies were not inadequate. The court has previously limited this type of implied warranty to services involving the repair or modification of existing tangible goods and declined to expand it here. Furthermore, the court rejected UMC's other arguments, holding that Rocky Mountain's failure to indemnify was a mere breach of contract, not a DTPA violation, and its failure to follow an internal training policy was not a misrepresentation to UMC, as there was no evidence UMC was aware of the policy.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies and constrains the application of the common-law implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance for services in Texas. It establishes that courts will not create new implied warranties under the DTPA where consumers already have sufficient protection through traditional tort and contract law. The ruling reinforces the high bar for judicial expansion of consumer remedies, requiring a 'compelling need' and a lack of other adequate options. This precedent helps prevent routine negligence or breach of contract claims from being automatically elevated to more punitive DTPA violations, maintaining a clear distinction between these causes of action.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Lubbock County Hospital District (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature