Stillwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Interstate Equipment Co.
Decision Date | 15 May 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 7830SC603,7830SC603 |
Citation | 254 S.E.2d 770,41 N.C.App. 204 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | STILLWELL ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Original Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, and Robert D. Kelly, Third-Party Defendants. |
Smith, Currie & Hancock, by Joseph A. McManus, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff appellant and Robert D. Kelly, third-party defendant appellant.
Raymer, Lewis, Eisele & Patterson, by Douglas G. Eisele, Statesville, for defendant appellee and third-party plaintiff appellee.
Plaintiff assigns as error the court's enforcement of the contractual limitations provided in the lease agreement. We find no error. The lease agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant constituted a bailment contract. Parties to a bailment contract may limit the rights of the bailee in case of a breach of an express warranty. Annot., 68 A.L.R.2d 850 (1959). The measure of the rights, duties, and obligations of bailor and bailee can be ascertained by looking at the terms of the contract itself. 8 Am.Jur.2d, Bailments, § 120, pp. 1014-15. Paragraph 6 of the lease in question provides:
Under Paragraph 11 of the lease, plaintiff's sole remedy if the equipment proved to be defective or unfit for use after the three-day period was to return the machinery to lessor and terminate the contract. In that event, plaintiff would have only been liable for the minimum rental charges supposedly embodied in the agreement. Paragraph 9 of the agreement provided that:
"The lessor shall not be liable in any event to the lessee for any loss, delay or damage of any kind or character resulting from defects in, or inefficiency of equipment hereby leased or accidental breakage thereof."
We need not consider what the consequence would have been if plaintiff had sought to terminate the contract under Paragraph 11.
In Falco Corp. v. Hood, 7 N.C.App. 717, 173 S.E.2d 578 (1970), we upheld a lease agreement which precluded the recovery of damages because of any defect in the equipment leased at the time of delivery where no notice was given in the five-day period provided therein. Quoting from 5 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 5, p. 156, we said:
" 'Where a lease of business equipment makes no provision that the lessee might recover damages because of any defect in the equipment at the time of delivery and that the lessee should give the lessor written notice of any defect within 5 days or it would be conclusively presumed that the equipment was delivered in good repair, the lessee is not entitled to damages or replacement as against the lessor for an asserted defect or misrepresentation as to the condition of the machinery at the time of delivery, no notice of any defect having been given the lessor as required by the instrument.' " (Citation omitted.)
Id. at 720, 173 S.E.2d at 581; See also Leasing Corp. v. Hall, 264 N.C. 110, 141 S.E.2d 30 (1965). We believe that our holding in Falco Corp. v. Hood, supra, is dispositive of the validity of the contractual limitation presented here. We affirm the entry of summary judgment as to the contractual limitation of damages.
Plaintiff next assigns as error the trial court's dismissal of the counts of its complaint insomuch as they allege a claim for relief based on negligence.
It is the duty of a bailor for hire to see that equipment leased is in good condition, and while he is not an insurer, he is liable for injury to the bailee or a third person for injuries proximately caused by a defect in the equipment of which he had knowledge or which he could have discovered by reasonable care and inspection. See Roberts v. Memorial Park, 281 N.C. 48, 187 S.E.2d 721 (1972); Hudson v. Drive It Yourself, Inc., 236 N.C. 503, 73 S.E.2d 4 (1952); Products Liability Liability of the Bailor for Hire for Personal Injury Caused by Defective Goods, 51 N.C.L.Rev. 786-87 (1973). See also 8 Am.Jur.2d, Bailments, § 143, p. 1039. The bailor's breach of this duty of reasonable care may give rise to an action in tort, as well as in contract. 8 Am.Jur.2d, Bailments, § 150, p. 1045. This possibility was recognized by our Supreme Court in Ports Authority v. Roofing Co., 294 N.C. 73, 240 S.E.2d 345 (1978). In setting forth the instances in which a breach of contract action may give rise to a tort, the Supreme Court stated:
Id. at 82-83, 240 S.E.2d at 351. The fact that the breach of duty under bailment contract gives rise to an action in tort for negligence was recognized in Insurance Asso. v. Parker, 234 N.C. 20, 65 S.E.2d 341 (1951); See also 8 Am.Jur.2d, Bailments, § 285, p. 1173. Our Supreme Court stated in Insurance Asso. v. Parker, supra :
If the scraper contained a preexisting defect which could or should have been discovered by a proper inspection, and if the defect was the proximate cause of plaintiff's damages, defendant would be liable to plaintiff. Mann v. Transportation Co. and Tillett v. Transportation Co., 283 N.C. 734, 198 S.E.2d 558 (1973).
Here, however, plaintiff has offered no evidence to show that the defect alleged existed at the time of leasing. On the contrary, plaintiff's evidence merely states "When I examined the scraper at Stillwell's request, I noticed that there was no lock wire to these bolts or screws.
Normal driving time from Statesville to Sylva is 23/4 hours. If two service personnel spent 223/4 hours in travel time and on the job setting up the machines for operations, such inspection should encompass the inspection of the front hitch ball joint.
From my experience of 25 years, If such front hitch ball joint were inspected and If lock wires were absent from the screws, this would signal some problems and further investigation of the matter would be in order. " (Emphasis added.)
Plaintiff's hypothetical assumption of a prior defect is not sufficient to impose liability on a bailor for hire. The defect must be shown to have existed at the time of delivery. See Hudson v. Drive It Yourself, Inc., supra. We hold the court's entry of summary judgment as to plaintiff's claim of negligence was proper.
Plaintiff's final assignment of error is that the trial court erred in its entry of summary judgment as to defendant's damages. We agree.
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Snelling & Snelling, Inc. v. Watson
... ... 55-131(a) since its business activities were solely interstate in nature. Therefore, plaintiff was not required to procure a Certificate ... agrees to provide advertising and other materials, services and equipment." 62 Am.Jur.2d Private Franchise § 3 at 761 (1972). The franchisor is ... However, in T. E. McCutcheon Enterprises, Inc. v. Snelling and Snelling, Inc., 232 Ga. 609, 212 S.E.2d 319 (1974), ... ...
-
NAT AND HAMRICK v. Commissioner
...by the guarantor to pay the debt at maturity if it is not paid by the principal debtor. Stillwell Enterprises Inc. v. Interstate Equipment Company, 41 N.C. App. 204, 254 S.E. 2d 770 (1979); Wachovia Bank and Trust Co.v. Clifton, 203 N.C. 483, 166 S.E. 334 (1932). The obligation of the guara......
-
Thermal Supply, Inc. v. Big Sky Beef, LLC
... ... Sky) entered into a contract in the summer of 2000 with Lafond Enterprises (Lafond) to install the prospective plant's refrigeration equipment ... ...