Products Liability Law Reporter
Decisions: Transportation
You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.
If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!
Join the Products Liability SectionAlready a subscriber? Log in
Tire retailer’s internal policy did not create duty of care
March 12, 2024A Florida appellate court held that a defendant’s internal policies, by themselves, do not create or define the duty of care owed to a plaintiff.
Michael Bradford purchased two tires from Discount Tire Co., which were installed on the rear wheels of his truck. The old rear tires, which were 14 years old, were rotated to the front of the truck. Four months later, while he was driving with his son on an interstate highway, Bradford’s left front tire experienced tread separation. Bradford lost control of the truck, resulting in a crash that killed him and his son.
Bradford’s wife, on behalf of Bradford and their son, sued Discount Tire Co., alleging that it had negligently serviced the older tire by rotating it to the front of the truck and that industry standards called for removing tires of that age from service. The defense moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had presented no evidence proving what the relevant industry standard was for retail tire sales and service providers. Granting the plaintiff’s motion for new trial, the court agreed with the plaintiff that the defendant’s alleged breach of its internal policy of not servicing any tire older than ten years presented a case that could go to the jury.
Reversing, the appellate court noted that under relevant case law, while evidence of internal policies is related to the standard of care, it does not establish the standard of care conclusively. Similarly, the court said, internal policies do not create a duty to third parties, and government manuals and procedures—in the context of government tort litigation—do not create an independent duty of care.
Applying these principles, the court concluded that the defendant’s internal policy calling for the refusal of service to customers not wishing to purchase a new tire to replace a ten-year-old tire does not amount to evidence that the defendant violated the industry standard of care. The court therefore remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the original final judgment for the defendant.
Citation: Discount Tire Co. v. Bradford, 2023 WL 7228186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2023).