Alexander v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.
110 So. 3d 668
La. Ct. App.
2013

Background

  • Alexander sued Lakeside Imports, Inc. for injuries from a deploying airbag in a Toyota Corolla serviced by Lakeside, which Lakeside had previously acquired from a dealer and serviced for years.
  • The vehicle was purchased by A-Quality Auto Sales, LLC, from Lakeside one day before Alexander bought it from A-Quality; Lakeside was not the immediate seller to Alexander.
  • The airbag involved was a first-generation design, and the warning label in use at the time was the unrevised pre-1997 label; NHTSA had promoted revised labeling for older models.
  • Lakeside knew A-Quality did not specialize in resale of used cars and had not provided the revised warning to A-Quality; the manufacturer was sending limited notices to categories of recipients rather than universally.
  • Alexander contends Lakeside owed a duty to warn or instruct her because Lakeside knew the manufacturer’s warning was inadequate and could foresee harm to future users, including Alexander.
  • The district court granted summary judgment on the theory that privity was required, which this court reverses and remands for trial on remaining issues of causation and breach.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Lakeside owed a duty to warn Alexander about airbag dangers. Alexander argues Lakeside’s duty encompasses foreseeable users when the manufacturer’s warning is inadequate. Lakeside contends no duty arises absent privity and without a defect or injury connection. Yes; Lakeside owed a duty to warn or instruct Alexander.
Whether summary judgment was proper given disputed facts about knowledge of warning inadequacy and distribution of revised labels. There are genuine issues about Lakeside’s knowledge and what warnings were actually provided. No genuine issues if no duty; the record shows no clear awareness or distribution of a revised label. No; genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment.
Whether federal labeling rules control or whether Louisiana duty-risk standards apply to non-manufacturer sellers. LPLA governs manufacturer responsibility; non-manufacturer seller duties may extend under negligence. FMVSS 208 and federal labeling do not automatically impose a duty on a non-manufacturer seller absent defect. Duty includes non-manufacturer seller under Louisiana negligence principles; not strictly bound by federal labeling alone.

Key Cases Cited

  • Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 262 La. 80, 262 So.2d 377 (La.1972) (consumer protection; no privity requirement for recovery in tort/redhibition)
  • Touro Infirmary v. Sizeler Architects, 04-0634, 900 So.2d 200 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (contract not required for recovery in tort or redhibition)
  • Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 923 So.2d 627 (La.2006) (duty analysis; policy factors in duty determination)
  • Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 752 So.2d 762 (La.1999) (duty and fault analysis in negligence)
  • Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc., 455 So.2d 1364 (La.1984) (duty as a question of law; standard for duty)
  • Byers v. Edmondson, 712 So.2d 681 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1998) (duty defined; general negligence standard)
  • Jimenez v. Omni Royal Orleans Hotel, 66 So.3d 528 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2011) (duty-risk analysis framework)
  • Meany v. Meany, 639 So.2d 229 (La.1994) (policy factors in duty determination)
  • Mundy v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 620 So.2d 811 (La.1993) (duty and causation; trial on facts)
  • Hunt v. Ford Motor Co., 341 So.2d 614 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1977) (dealer duty when defect apparent; reasonable efforts to discover defect)
  • Slaid v. Evergreen Indem. Ltd., 745 So.2d 793 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1999) (non-manufacturer seller duty to warn when defect known or should be known)
  • Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 923 So.2d 118 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2005) (scope of non-manufacturer seller duty to warn)
  • Thomasson v. A.K. Dumin Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 399 So.2d 1208 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1981) (non-manufacturer liability and duty)
  • Gammill v. Invacare Corp., 2 So.3d 557 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (ease of association and duty considerations)
  • Hopper v. Crown, 555 So.2d 46 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1989) (non-manufacturer duty to warn must know defect)
Read the full case