Chapter 10 - § 10.4 DETERMINATION OF LEGAL DUTY IS A QUESTION OF LAW FACTORS CONSIDERED BY COURTS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 10.4 DETERMINATION OF LEGAL DUTY IS A QUESTION OF LAW FACTORS CONSIDERED BY COURTS

§ 10.4.1 Automobile Dealer Had No Duty to Warn Decedent of Hazard Posed by Inoperable Seat Belt

Campbell v. Burt Toyota-Diahatsu, Inc., 983 P.2d 95 (Colo. App. 1998), was a wrongful death action arising from an automobile accident. The plaintiffs, the spouse and heirs of David Campbell, brought an action against Burt and other parties for his death. The other claims were settled, but the plaintiffs went to trial against Burt and prevailed. Burt appealed, arguing that the judgment had to be reversed because it owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs. The court of appeals agreed.

The Campbells owned a 1983 Toyota. In 1989, the driver's seat belt ceased to function because of a broken retractor, causing excessive slack in the belt. Mrs. Campbell remedied this problem by folding up the slack and fastening it together with a metal clip from a child's car seat. In 1992, when the Campbells brought the Toyota to Burt for an unrelated repair, they asked about the seat belt and were told that the retractor would have to be replaced for the belt to function properly. They declined to make the repair, and David Campbell was killed while driving the car in 1993.

Under these circumstances, the court of appeals agreed with Burt that it owed no legal duty to warn the plaintiffs of the hazard posed by the inoperable seat belt, and, therefore, it reversed the judgment. "Whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a legal duty is a question of law." Id. at 97. To determine whether a legal duty exists, a court must consider a number of factors, including "the risk involved, the foreseeability of harm as weighed against the social utility of the actor's conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the harm, and the consequences of placing the burden upon the actor." Id. Furthermore, the court noted that in some circumstances, "there is no duty to warn where the risk of danger is apparent to an ordinary person, or where he or she already knows of the danger." Id.

Applying these factors to the circumstances of this case, the court held that it would be inappropriate to impose a legal duty upon Burt to warn of the hazard posed by the seat belt. First, the court pointed out that even though the foreseeability of harm was great, it was outweighed "by the lack of social utility in imposing a legal duty on Burt to warn of a safety hazard that was known or should have been known to the Campbells." Id. The court noted that the owner's manual that came with the car contained warnings about modifying a malfunctioning seat belt, and "such warnings are presumed to have been read and heeded." Id. The court concluded that the hazard present to the Campbells was obvious and that they either knew or were on notice that the modified seat belt was dangerous.

Next, the court recognized that imposition of a legal duty upon Burt would create a potentially onerous burden. Almost any problem with a car has a potential for danger, and imposing a duty upon a repair shop to warn of obvious hazards would probably increase the time and cost to repair cars and might lead repair shops to limit the type of repair work they performed. Thus, the court held that "Burt had no duty to warn the Campbells of the danger of seat-belt modification because the danger was known or should have been known." Id. at 99.

§ 10.4.2 Plumbing Contractor Had No Duty to Warn About a Defective Gas Connector on Stove on Which Contractor Did Not Work

In Lewis v. Emil Clayton Plumbing Co., 25 P.3d 1254 (Colo. App. 2000), the court considered whether a plumbing contractor that installed a water heater in a home had a duty to warn the occupants about a possibly defective flexible gas connector on a stove on which the contractor did not work. The court of appeals held that no such duty existed.

Lewis was an action brought to recover damages for wrongful death and property damage resulting from a gas explosion that destroyed a home. After the explosion, an investigation revealed that the explosion was caused by a leakage of natural gas from a faulty brass flex connector that supplied a gas stove in the basement of the home. Five weeks before the explosion, the defendant, Emil Clayton Plumbing Company, had replaced a water heater in the home, which was owned by Margaret Sena. Sena died in the explosion. The gas stove was located next to the water heater, and the brass connector was in plain view. During a discovery deposition, one of the defendant's plumbers acknowledged that such flex connectors may be dangerous. He testified that he recommends that such...