Lyzhoft v. Waconia Farm Supply
| Decision Date | 08 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | A12-2237,A12-2238 |
| Parties | Richard T. Lyzhoft, individually, and Richard T. Lyzhoft, as father and natural guardian of Jeremiah R. Lyzhoft, Appellant (A12-2237), Respondent (A12-2238), v. Waconia Farm Supply, Respondent (A12-2237), Appellant (A12-2238), Brian T. Donahue, individually and d/b/a Donahue Mechanical, Inc., Respondent, Thomas M. Donahue, individually and d/b/a Donahue Mechanical, Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Carver County District Court
Curtis D. Smith, Moss & Barnett P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Richard T. Lyzhoft)
Mark R. Bradford, David M. Dahlmeier, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Waconia Farm Supply)
Timothy J. Fetterly, Cheryl Hood Langel, McCollum, Crowley, Moschet, Miller & Laak, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Brian T. Donahue)Kevin F. Gray, Matthew W. Moehrle, Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent Thomas A. Donahue)
Considered and decided by Smith, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this consolidated appeal, appellants challenge the district court's summary-judgment dismissal of their strict products-liability and negligence claims against respondents. We affirm the court's dismissal of the products-liability claim but reverse its dismissal of appellants' negligence claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Appellant Richard Lyzhoft contracted with respondent Brian Donahue to perform work at Lyzhoft's home including installation of a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning unit in or around May 2009. During the course of Brian Donahue's work, his father, respondent Thomas Donahue, stopped by the home several times to check on the progress and, on one occasion, purchased two items for installation in the home. Lyzhoft reimbursed Thomas Donahue for the items but did not pay him for his time.
On June 10, 2009, knowing that Lyzhoft needed propane to obtain a certificate of occupancy, the Donahues told Lyzhoft that they had a propane cylinder that he could use, and that it was located at Brian Donahue's home. The Donahues also told Lyzhoft that appellant Waconia Farm Supply "would be the place to fill" the cylinder with propane.Lyzhoft and Brian Donahue went to Brian Donahue's home, where Lyzhoft's son and Brian Donahue's son obtained the available propane cylinder and placed it in the bed of Lyzhoft's truck. At that time, Brian Donahue cracked open the valve on the propane cylinder for a few seconds, sniffed, and said that it smelled like propane. Lyzhoft and his son then drove to Waconia Farm Supply to fill the tank with propane. After they arrived, Lyzhoft went to Waconia Farm Supply's shed, while his son remained in the truck. At the shed, Lyzhoft met Waconia Farm supply employee, Ryan Samuelson, who began to fill the cylinder with propane. Lyzhoft left the shed to pay for the propane. Approximately five seconds later, before Lyzhoft reached the store, the propane cylinder exploded, killing Samuelson, allegedly causing Lyzhoft's son to sustain first-degree burns on his arms and neck and initial symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, and allegedly causing Lyzhoft to suffer moderately severe hearing loss, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Subsequent chemical tests of the propane cylinder revealed that it had contained acetylene, which can be extremely unstable. In this case, the cylinder detonated when it received pressure while being filled with propane.
The Donahues came into possession of the propane cylinder more than a year before the accident, after Thomas Donahue's tenant committed suicide, leaving the cylinder on the leased premises. During the tenant's possession of the leased premises, at least one person regularly sold "meth" on the premises, and someone on the premises had been "transferring oxygen and acetylene into propane tanks."
For injuries suffered by himself and his son, Lyzhoft asserted claims of strict liability and negligence against the Donahues and claims of strict liability forultrahazardous activities, negligence, negligence per se, and res ipsa loquitur against Waconia Farm Supply, and sought damages in excess of $100,000 against respondents, jointly and severally. Waconia Farm Supply cross-claimed against the Donahues, alleging negligence and entitlement to contribution and/or indemnity.
The district court denied the Donahues' motions to dismiss, reasoning that facts could be introduced to support Lyzhoft's claims against the Donahues. The court granted partial summary judgment in the case, dismissing all of Lyzhoft's claims against the Donahues, and therefore dismissing Waconia Farm Supply's cross-claims against the Donahues. At the request of Waconia Farm Supply, the court ordered the immediate entry of judgment without a stay under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.
These consolidated appeals follow.1
An appellate court "review[s] the district court's grant of summary judgment to determine (1) if there are genuine issues of material fact and (2) if the district court erred in its application of the law." Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp., 828 N.W.2d 109, 113 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted). An appellate court "view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted." McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn. 2013). "No genuine issue for trial exists when the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." Id. (quotations omitted).
Lyzhoft challenges the district court's dismissal of his strict-products-liability claim against the Donahues. He argues that the Donahues should be held strictly liable for damages caused by the propane-cylinder explosion because the Donahues were commercial bailors, who distributed the cylinder in connection with Brian Donahue's heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning business.
"Products liability is a manufacturer's or seller's tort liability for any damages or injuries suffered by a buyer, user, or bystander as a result of a defective product." Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 816 N.W.2d 572, 581 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). A plaintiff may premise a products-liability claim on a strict-liability theory. Id. In McCormack v. Hankscraft Company, 278 Minn. 322, 340, 154 N.W.2d 488, 501 (1967), the supreme court "declare[d its] agreement with the principles underlying the rule of strict tort liability and . . . record[ed its] intention of applying that rule" in products-liability cases. Those principles are embodied in the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A (1965), which provides that a person is liable for "sell[ing] any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer . . . for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer." (Emphasis added.); see Minn. Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd., 565 N.W.2d 16, 21 (Minn. 1997) (); Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 327, 188 N.W.2d 426, 431 (1971) (). The Minnesota Supreme Court has extended a manufacturer's strict liability to "retailers and distributors" because "[t]he same policy considerations apply, since both retailers and manufacturers are engaged in the business of distributing goods to the public." Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 288 Minn. 83, 97 n.1, 179 N.W.2d 64, 72 n.1 (1970).
A "[b]ailment" is a "legal relation arising upon delivery of goods without transference of ownership under an express or implied agreement that the goods be returned," Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 434, 437 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted), in which the "bailor" delivers the goods and the "bailee" receives the goods, Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. Commodore Hotel, Inc., 259 Minn. 349, 351, 107 N.W.2d 708, 709 (1961). Thomas Donahue challenges the existence of a bailment as to him, arguing that he never owned the propane cylinder or delivered it to Lyzhoft. Thomas Donahue testified at his deposition that, after he and Brian Donahue found the propane cylinder on his rental property, Brian Donahue took it to his home as "a reserve." Brian Donahue testified that he retained the propane cylinder for approximately one year until his son and Lyzhoft's son placed it in Lyzhoft's truck, and Lyzhoft testified that he did not know who owned the cylinder and that Thomas Donahue was not present when Lyzhoft received the cylinder from Brian Donahue. Lyzhoft testified that, on the day of the explosion, he learned that a propane cylinder existed that he could borrow and get filled with propane at Waconia Farm Supply when Brian and Thomas Donahue told him, "[W]e got a[] [propane cylinder] at Brian's place." (Emphasis added.) As to delivery of the propane cylinder to Lyzhoft, "[t]he law relating to deliveryand change of possession is flexible, accommodating itself to the nature of the property and the situation and circumstances of each case." Coulter v. Meining, 143 Minn. 104, 107-08, 172 N.W. 910, 911-12 (1919) (); cf. Fenrick v. Olson, 269 Minn. 412, 422, 131 N.W.2d 235, 241-42 (1964) ().
Viewing the record in...
To continue reading
Request your trial