The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently issued a decision in the case of Straw v. Fair, which arose from a May 1, 2012 accident in which Thomas Straw was driving a vehicle along Route 28 near Pittsburgh, with his wife and two minor children as passengers. The front hood latch on the vehicle malfunctioned, causing the hood to fly open and obstruct Thomas’s view. Unable to see, Thomas stopped the vehicle in the roadway and turned on his four-way flashers. A second vehicle was driven by Kirk Fair in the course of his employment with Golon Masonry Restoration. Fair was under the influence of narcotics and became further distracted when some books slid from his front seat onto the floor. Fair crashed into the rear of the Straw vehicle, resulting in serious injuries to Thomas and his wife, as well as the tragic death of their six year old son.
Mr. and Mrs. Straw filed a lawsuit against Fair, his employer, as well as an automobile repair shop and two auto parts stores, to which their vehicle had been taken for inspections and service several months prior to the accident. The Straws alleged that the hood latch problems had not been diagnosed or properly repaired by the auto businesses, giving the plaintiffs an incorrect belief that the vehicle could be safely driven. The auto businesses filed motions for summary judgment, contending that they owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs, that the injuries were not reasonably foreseeable in light of the months which passed since they serviced the vehicle, and that Kirk Fair’s reckless driving was a superseding cause of the accident. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed them from the case. A trial was held with only Fair and his employer as defendants, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Straws in the amount of $32 million. The plaintiffs filed an appeal alleging that the auto businesses should have remained in the case as additional defendants.
The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s ruling on the defendants’ summary judgment motions, and remanded the case for a new trial to include the car repair shop and parts stores. The court noted that the inspection facility noticed the problem with the hood latch, but allegedly applied the wrong type of oil when repairing it – resulting in only a temporary fix, so a jury must determine the true cause of the failure of the hood latch. The Superior Court also noted there to be a factual question as to whether the auto parts stores acted negligently in advising the plaintiff that the vehicle could be safely driven, even though one of the businesses did not charge the plaintiff. Section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts imposes liability upon one who provides services for another, whether gratuitously or for consideration, if the services increase the plaintiff’s risk of harm, or if the plaintiff relies upon those services.
The Superior Court rejected the “lack of foreseeability” arguments raised by the auto businesses, noting there to be a factual question as to whether or not the conduct of the auto businesses contributed to causing the accident. The jury must be able to analyze the number of other factors which contributed to the harm, including Kirk Fair’s negligent driving, and determine whether the auto businesses played a role in causing the incident. Therefore, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial to include the additional defendants.
The attorneys of Supinka & Supinka, PC, are experienced in cases arising from car accidents. For more information and a consultation, please call (724) 349-6768.
