LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

by Kevin Walli, AASP-MN Lobbyist

Washington Case Raises Concerns for Repair Shops Across the Country

AASP-MN staff periodically comes across legal cases that are relevant to the operation of member repair shops. Just recently, Judell asked us to review and comment on a case from the State of Washington which involved the failure of a franchisee of a national auto repair chain to properly inspect a vehicle which was later involved in a serious accident.

In this instance, the failure to act on the part of the franchisee resulted in the franchisor being deemed liable for the negligence of its franchisee.

In our initial analysis of the case, we thought that this was a pretty straightforward negligence case. The franchisee failed to properly inspect and warn the customer of a tire in need of replacement. The tire failed. The vehicle rolled. The driver and passenger sustained serious injury and the national company – the franchisor – was brought into the case under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior makes an employer or principal liable for the wrong of an employee or agent if the wrong was committed within the scope of employment or agency.

While this analysis is helpful, your AASP-MN staff asked us to dig deeper to provide advice regarding the responsibility among repair shops – especially for those of you who operate multiple sites. We were also asked to consider what liability arises as a result of vehicle inspections that you provide to customers as part of your service plan.

Just as the national franchisor in the Washington case was held responsible for the negligent inspection by a franchisee shop, the parent company of an organization with multiple locations will not be able to isolate itself from the negligent acts or failure to act of an individual shop.

Additionally, once an inspection program is established, a repair shop must carefully train staff who have vehicle inspection responsibilities to ensure that they are providing the service a customer might reasonably expect to receive based on representations by the company. continued on pg. 21