AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• An employee of Creed, Inc., sustained injuries when exiting a commercial truck leased from Grando’s, LLC, due to a collapsed sidestep maintained with a wire. The employee filed a lawsuit against Grando’s, alleging negligence, strict product liability, and breach of implied warranty. Grando’s, in its defense, argued it did not owe a duty to maintain or repair the truck, as it was not a motor carrier and had delegated all duties concerning the truck to Creed, Inc. (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Eddy County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Grando’s, dismissing the employee’s complaint.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that Grando’s admitted to being a motor carrier and owed a duty to maintain and repair the leased truck, was a motor carrier under federal and state law, and owed common law duty of care regardless of its status as a motor carrier. Also contended that Grando’s was strictly liable for the defect due to its principal's awareness of the truck's condition (paras 3-4).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended it did not owe any common law or statutory duty to maintain or repair the truck, as it was not a motor carrier, did not employ the plaintiff, and had delegated all duties to Creed. Additionally, argued that there was no evidence the truck was defective at the time of leasing and that all implied warranties were disclaimed (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether Grando’s, by its admissions and status, owed a duty to maintain and repair the leased truck.
• Whether Grando’s is considered a motor carrier under federal and state law, thus owing duties imposed on motor carriers.
• Whether Grando’s owed a common law duty of care to the plaintiff, regardless of its status as a motor carrier.
• Whether Grando’s is strictly liable for the truck's defect due to its principal's awareness of the truck's condition.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of the third negligence argument but affirmed the dismissal of the first and second negligence arguments and the strict liability argument.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Bohnhoff, J., with Zamora, J., and Kiehne, J., concurring, found that:
  Grando’s admissions in its answer were conclusions of law and not material to the summary judgment analysis (para 10).
  Grando’s, as a lessor of trucks, was not a motor carrier subject to statutory and regulatory duties of maintenance and repair imposed on motor carriers (paras 11-17).
  The district court erred in granting summary judgment on the negligence claim because there was a question of fact regarding Grando’s notice of the truck step defect, which could establish a duty to repair the defect (paras 18-30).
  The district court did not err in dismissing the strict product liability claim as there was no evidence contradicting Grando’s assertion that the truck was not defective at the time of leasing to Creed (paras 31-32).