Bailey v. Lewis Farm, Inc.

171 P.3d 336 (2007)

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

D sold the tractor-trailer to Lewis Farm in January 2000.' In November 2000, an employee of Lewis Farm was driving the tractor-trailer when the 'left rear axle assembly separated from the tractor and the dual wheels and tires came off the 1993 Kenworth unit. The tires bounced across the highway, hitting P’s vehicle. P’s car when down an embankment and was engulfed in flames. P brought this action against D, Lewis Farm, and Paccar, Inc., which had manufactured the Kenworth tractor-trailer. Plaintiff's claims against Lewis Farm and Paccar have been resolved, and only P’s negligence claim against D remains. The complaint alleges that D was negligent 'in that any maintenance to the rear axle shaft and/or drive axle [that D performed while it owned the tractor-trailer] failed to result in a truck that was safe to operate.' P claimed that D's negligent maintenance of the axle 'was a substantial contributing cause of the failure of the rear axle' and the resulting injuries to P. D moved to dismiss that claim because it failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. D argued that it had not owned the truck for approximately a year before the accident occurred and that the accident and the resulting injury to P were not a foreseeable consequence of its alleged negligence. The court dismissed the claim with prejudice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment by an evenly divided vote. It reasoned that as a result of the sale, D had lost ownership and, more importantly, control of the tractor-trailer for a year before the accident occurred. It held that 'those who drive and maintain a vehicle at the time of an accident -- those who exercise the ability, to the extent possible, to assess the vehicle's roadworthiness -- form the intervening harm-producing force behind any injuries that result from the unsafe condition of the vehicle.' It held that Lewis Farm's opportunity to correct the result of defendant's earlier negligence was a superseding cause. P appealed.