Mico Mobile Sales & Leasing, Inc. v. Skyline Corp.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1975
• Docket Number: Nos. 11747,11748,s. 11747
• Citation: 546 P.2d 54,97 Idaho 408
• Parties: , 81 A.L.R.3d 408 MICO MOBILE SALES AND LEASING, INC., Cross Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SKYLINE CORPORATION, a corporation, et al., Cross Defendants-Respondents. SKYLINE CORPORATION, a corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BRASS CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 54

546 P.2d 54

97 Idaho 408, 81 A.L.R.3d 408

MICO MOBILE SALES AND LEASING, INC., Cross Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SKYLINE CORPORATION, a corporation, et al., Cross Defendants-Respondents.

SKYLINE CORPORATION, a corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BRASS CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Nos. 11747, 11748.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 1, 1975.

Richard C. Fields, of Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Blanton, Boise, for appellant Mico Mobile Sales & Leasing, Inc.

Phillip M. Barber, of Elam, Burke, Jeppesen, Evans & Boyd, Boise, for appellant (no. 11748) and respondent (no. 11747) Skyline Corp.

Donald A. Ronayne, of Rayborn, Rayborn & Ronayne, Twin Falls, for respondent Vern Thomas Plumbing & Heating.

Dale Clemons, of Clemons, Cosho, Humphrey & Samuelson, Boise, for respondent Idaho Chemicals, Inc.

Mark S. Geston, of Eberle, Berlin, Kading, Turnbow & Gillespie, Boise, for respondent United States Brass Corp.

John Hepworth, of Hepworth, Nungester & Felton, Buhl, as amicus curiae.

McFADDEN, Justice.

This appeal arises from a products liability action instituted by Mr. and Mrs. Craig Rumpeltes of Ketchum, Idaho, to recover damages for the wrongful death of their thirteen month old son, Travis Rumpeltes. The cause of Travis' death was methanol poisoning; he died after he consumed the contents of a baby bottle prepared by his mother which contained a mixture contaminated with methanol. ¹

Laboratory tests indicated that methanol was in the domestic plumbing system of a new mobile home. This mobile home was purchased by the Rumpeltes from Mico Sales and Leasing, Inc. (hereinafter 'Mico') and manufactured by Skyline Corporation (hereinafter 'Skyline'). According to the record, Mico had used the methanol in the plumbing system as an antifreeze agent. Mico had purchased the methanol from Idaho Chemicals, Inc. (hereinafter 'Idaho Chemical'). The Rumpeltes may have been unable to flush the antifreeze from the plumbing system because of two defects-a cold water line clogged with debris from the construction process, and a kitchen faucet with an improperly installed seal. The kitchen faucet, installed as a component party by Skyline, was manufactured by United States Brass Corporation (hereinafter 'U. S. Brass'). The Rumpeltes had contracted with Vern Thomas, doing business as Vern Thomas Plumbing and Heating (hereinafter 'Vern Thomas'), to connect the mobile home's gas system to a gas meter and for plumbing work.

The Rumpeltes filed an amended complaint against Mico, Idaho Chemical, Skyline and Vern Thomas for the wrongful death of their child. Mico filed a cross claim against Idaho Chemical, Skyline, and Vern Thomas, seeking indemnification and/or contribution. Skyline, in turn, filed a third party complaint against United States Brass Corporation.

Skyline, Idaho Chemical, and Vern Thomas, each moved for summary judgment as to the Rumpeltes complaint, and also, as to Mico's cross claim. I.R.C.P. 56. U. S. Brass also moved for summary judgment against Skyline on its third party complaint. The district court granted each motion on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact in the claims alleged and each of the parties were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The action was tried as to Rumpeltes' complaint against Mico. The jury returned a verdict for the Rumpeltes and judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. Initially, Mico appealed from that judgment. However, this court dismissed that appeal upon stipulation of the parties.

Mico appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Skyline, Idaho Chemical, and Vern Thomas. Skyline appeals from the order granting summary judgment to U. S. Brass on Skyline's third party complaint. These appeals have been consolidated.

The events leading to Travis' death will be summarized. The implications of these events as they pertain to the questions raised on appeal will be discussed in other portions of this opinion.

The Rumpeltes' mobile home, manufactured by Skyline, was delivered to Mico, the retail dealer, with two defects in the domestic water system: ² the water line delivering cold water to the kitchen sink was plugged with debris from the manufacturing process, and the kitchen faucet did not allow cold water to flow from the faucet because of an improperly installed teflon seal. The faucet, manufactured by U. S. Brass, was activated by a single lever which controlled the water flow and temperature.

After delivery of the mobile home by Skyline, the manufacturer, to Mico, the dealer, Mico's agents pumped an antifreeze substance, methanol, into the domestic water system and then supposedly removed the methanol from the plumbing system. The process was done to protect the plumbing system from the freezing of residual water in the system. A serviceman for Mico testified that a mixture of methanol and water could still remain in the low lying portions of the domestic water system. Mico purchased the methanol from Idaho Chemical; it was delivered to Mico in fifty-five gallon drums which were not labeled with a warning as to the toxic qualities of methanol.

After the Rumpeltes purchased the mobile home, Mico delivered the unit to Ketchum, Idaho. When the unit was delivered, Mico's serviceman informed Craig Rumpeltes that there was antifreeze in the 'lines' and instructed him to flush the 'water lines'. The serviceman did not inform Rumpeltes of the toxic qualities of the antifreeze (methanol). At that time, Mico's serviceman connected the water system to an outside water source but did not turn on the water. The serviceman did not test or examine the domestic water system after delivery of the trailer.

Mrs. Rumpeltes cotnacted Vern Thomas and requested the company to connect the water system and gas lines. Craig Rumpeltes had informed her of the need to flush out the water system and she testified that Mico's serviceman had also told her, in a joking manner, about the alcohol in the system as he was preparing to leave the second day.

The day after the mobile home was delivered, Gary Gutches, a plumber employed by Vern Thomas, connected the mobile home's gas system to the gas meter and, working with a serviceman from the gas company, turned on the gas. He replaced a broken water faucet (a 'hose bib') and then turned on the water to fill the hot water tank so that the gas company's serviceman could light the water heater's pilot light. He checked the bathroom and kitchen faucets to determine that water was flowing from them. He left the mobile home with both the bathroom and kitchen faucets ³ open. Mrs. Rumpeltes left the faucets open for approximately thirty minutes from the time the water was turned on.

The afternoon of the same day, Mrs. Rumpeltes prepared a baby bottle for Travis with a mixture of apple juice and water drawn from the kitchen tap. She gave the bottle to Travis; shortly thereafter he became ill and subsequently died. The cause of death was determined to be methanol poisoning. After Travis' death, the defects in the cold water line and the kitchen faucet were discovered and repaired.

I

Before examining the specific facts and principles of law as they may pertain to each party, we must first summarize the general precepts and applicable presumptions by which this court will review the trial court's decision to grant a summary judgment.

"Summary judgment is properly granted when 'the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' (Citations omitted.) In determining whether any issue of material fact is in dispute, it is well settled that the facts should be liberally construed in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. (Citations omitted.) In light of this rule, this court has held that summary judgment is improper when a conflict in affidavits respecting issues of fact exists, or when the relevant pleadings, depositions and affidavits raise any question of credibility of witnesses. (Citations omitted.) On the other hand, a mere scintilla of evidence will not create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. (Citations omitted.) On appeal from an order granting summary judgment, this court must construe the evidence presented to the district court liberally in favor of the party opposing the order and accord him 'the benefit of all inferences which might be reasonably drawn.' (Citations omitted.)" Fairchild v. Olsen, 96 Idaho 338, 339, 528 P.2d 900, 901-902 (1974), quoting Straley v. Idaho Nuclear Corp., 94 Idaho 917, 918-919, 500 P.2d 218, 219 (1972).

II

(Mico v. Skyline, Skyline v. U.S. Brass)

Mico, the retail dealer, in its cross claim against Skyline, the manufacturer, seeks indemnification and contribution. Mico submits that the two defects-the plugged cold water line and the defective kitchen faucet-were proximate causes of Travis' death. Skyline disagrees, asserting that Mico's act of placing a toxic substance in the domestic water system was a superseding cause.

This court has adopted the rule of strict liability as it appears in the Restatement (Second), Torts, § 402A (1965), and so the theories of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability in tort would be available to a plaintiff in the appropriate case. Shields v. Morton Chemical Co., 95 Idaho 674, 518 P.2d 857 (1974). Mico's complaint will be considered as being founded upon negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach of warranty. Regardless of the theory under which recovery is sought, the plaintiff, to recover, must establish that the injury complained of is causally related to the defendant's act or omission. ⁴ Henderson v. Cominco American, Inc.,95 Idaho 690, 518 P.2d 873 (1974); Robinson v. Williamsen Idaho Equip. Co.,94 Idaho 819, 498 P.2d 1292 (19...