Cruz v. DaimlerChrysler Motors

Rhode Island Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturNegligent misrepresentationLoss of consortiumSummary judgmentnegligenceres ipsa loquitur

Facts

Nelson Cruz bought a used 1996 Grand Caravan from Ricky Smith in December 1998. He alleged that dealership employees told him the vehicle was safe and had never been in an accident. About three years later, in December 2001, while Cruz was cleaning the interior of the stationary vehicle, both front airbags unexpectedly deployed and injured him. Plaintiffs claimed negligence and negligent misrepresentation against the dealership and relied on res ipsa loquitur to support the negligence claim.

Issue

Whether the trial justice properly granted summary judgment to Ricky Smith on plaintiffs' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims. More specifically, the court considered whether plaintiffs could rely on res ipsa loquitur to infer the dealership's negligence from the spontaneous airbag deployment and whether plaintiffs produced evidence that the dealership made a false material representation when the vehicle was sold.

Rule

Under Rhode Island law, res ipsa loquitur follows Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D and permits an inference of negligence when (a) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, (b) other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence, and (c) the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff; exclusive control is not required. Negligent misrepresentation requires (1) a misrepresentation of material fact, (2) knowledge of falsity, lack of knowledge of truth or falsity, or circumstances in which the speaker ought to have known of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, and (4) injury caused by justifiable reliance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Providence, Maya Torres bought a used sedan from Harbor Line Auto. Two days later, while the car sat locked in her garage, the driver's airbag suddenly deployed as she opened the door. Maya offers evidence that no repairs, alterations, or accidents occurred after delivery and sues the dealership for negligence, relying on res ipsa loquitur.

Assuming Rhode Island law applies, which is the best argument that Maya can survive summary judgment on negligence?

Explanation. Under Restatement § 328D as reaffirmed by the majority, res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence only if the event ordinarily does not occur without negligence, other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated, and the inferred negligence falls within the defendant’s duty. Exclusive control is not required. A very short time between sale and malfunction plus evidence negating post-sale causes makes the best case that the inference points to the dealership rather than someone else.