lawn mower damage

[zoilla]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

My sister's friend, Lou, offered to let me use his lawn mower for the day which my sister elected to walk over from his home to ours. While prepping the mower, Lou gave my sister several instructions to relay to me when she delivered the mower. These instructions included starting, operating, mulching and refueling the mower. As it happened, I did not meet up with my sister when she arrived and, subsequently, had to call Lou to get operating instructions. Lou was quite perturbed at my sister's failure to give me these instructions but came over and showed me how to start the mower, how to use the throttle and how to engage the mulching system. He said that the fuel tank was full (but said nothing about refueling the mower, as he had said in the instructions that he previously gave to my sister).

When the fuel was exhausted, I went to the gas mart to obtain more fuel and then proceeded to refill the tank. Immediately following, upon starting, the mower quickly stalled and finally it would not start at all. I called Lou with this problem and he came over again and inspected the mower for possible causes of the stalling. I told him the events leading up to the this situation and when he discovered that I put raw gas in the mower and not a special gas-oil mixture he was livid and took the mower home in an attempt to repair the damage that was done. He reported back and said that the mower was now completely trashed, as it was run without oil, and was holding my sister responsible for not passing along the instructions to me that he had given her.

When my sister arrived home, I told her what happened and she confessed that she was in a rush to leave the house and left without relaying the instructions that Lou had given her. For this failure, she offered to help pay for a replacement mower to which I countered that I did not think she was responsible at all since Lou came to see me afterward, eliminating any middleman role she that she initially undertook. When I pointed this out to Lou, he said that he simply forgot to mention the refueling instructions to me but that my sister was still to blame for being so irresponsible and stupid.

After some reflection, I called Lou and said that I would try to find a comparable replacement mower for which my sister and I would bear the full cost; alternatively, if he wished to have a new mower, we were favorable to splitting the cost with him. Lou did not think that he should have to bear any cost but that my sister and I should bear the cost of a new mower because of her failure to relay the instructions he had given her, which included obtaining additional fuel at his place. He says that I am also partly to blame for not paying close enough attention to the inscription on the fuel tank cap which says “gas-oil mix”. (This inscription, however, was a product of the plastic molding process and is the same black color as the cap, making the lettering non distinct and easy to miss).

I feel terrible that this accident which could have so easily been prevented. If I had been more observant and noticed the inscription on the fuel tank cap, if Lou had not been so forgetful and gave me complete instructions. The repair shops all say it makes no sense to get the mower repaired because the repair cost involved would be grater than the cost of a comparable new mower. I am prepared to pay for a reconditioned mower of comparable quality (this mower was six years old and the design discontinued). For twice the amount of a reconditioned mower, however, a new mower can be purchased, a plan which I favor if Lou is agreeable to contributing something to the additional cost. My feeling is that we should both contribute to replacing the mower since we both had an opportunity at different times to prevent the accident and unfortunate outcome. Is there any legal standard that can be applied here? Is any one party more responsible than the others? Is there a rationale for Lou to contribute to the cost of a replacement mower? Is such a owner/lender not liable at all in the face of accidental damage or personal injury resulting from his misleading, incorrect or incomplete instructions?

 

[justalayman]

sis is liable for the mower simply because she is the one that borrowed it and as such, would be required to return it in similar condition.

You may have some liability to sis but I am sure the two of you will work that out without a courts involvement.

Lou has no liability here but sis' liability is limited to the value of the mower so, if you and sis are willing to pay half the cost of a new mower if Lou will pay the rest, sounds like a good deal for Lou.

 

[Zigner]

Disagree with Just on this one...OP is fully responsible for the value of the mower. The owner knew who he was lending it to and came over subsequent to the delivery by the sis (basically, she was the delivery guy).

 

[zoilla]

Is an owner/lender of such personal use equipment not liable at all for any accidental damage to the equipment, incidental property damage, or any personal injury to the user resulting from the owner/lender's misleading, inaccurate or incomplete operating instructions? Is he held complete harmless and all consequence simply falls on the user?

 

[justalayman]

Disagree with Just on this one...OP is fully responsible for the value of the mower. The owner knew who he was lending it to and came over subsequent to the delivery by the sis (basically, she was the delivery guy).

after I read the dang thing I do see it was the OP borrowing. For some reason I missed that little bit of info. Guess I had better go back to at least 4 hours sleep a night.

Yes, I do agree with Zig. OP is liable.

but to what is owed to Lou; that stays the same.

Is an owner/lender of such personal use equipment not liable at all for any accidental damage to the equipment, incidental property damage, or any personal injury to the user resulting from the owner/lender's misleading, inaccurate or incomplete operating instructions? Is he held complete harmless and all consequence simply falls on the user?

if there was something special about running the lawnmower like; you have to cross your fingers and when it is running you have to whistle Dixie or it will blow up and Leo does not inform you, then, you can argue that the unique situation and failure to disclose is the proximate cause of the damage but in this situation, the mower is a typical mower. The warning is on the gas cap. The damage was due to OP's ignorance of the mowers need for the oil/gas mix even though it was labeled on the gas cap.


Let me expand on that a bit:

do you believe he would have had to tell you to not mow rocks or it would damage the mower? How about that you shouldn't lift it up to mow the top of your hedges (seen that done). Would Leo be liable for the damaged mower from the rocks or for your missing fingers (yep, that's what happened)?

Of course not. It is your responsibility to understand the machine you are using unless there is some unique situation that you could not have known about without Leos disclosure. Even then, his liability may very well be limited since it is still your responsibility to understand the machine.

Your failure to practice due diligence does not make him liable.

 

[zoilla]

Thanks for your more detailed assessment.

The unique feature of this lawnmower was that it was fueled by a special oil mixture prepared by the manufacturer which is then added to specified amount of gasoline. In this situation only Lou know of this feature. I informed Lou at the outset that I had not operated any lawnmower since I was a kid and we had a chuckle about that. (He never mentioned to me at that time or any other time that his lawn mower was a two cycle mower that used this special oil-gas mixture and not a four cycle mower that used straight gasoline, as other mowers use and as all new mowers sold today use). Consequently, he gave all pertinent operating instructions, including the refueling instruction, to my sister to relay to me. When I did not get those instructions from my sister, I had to call Lou to get them. He then came over in person and gave me primer on how to operate this mower but still never said anything about the refueling mower, which he later admitted that he plain forgot to do.

I do not think the fuel cap inscription was meant to be a fail safe measure. When a person buys a new mower, he gets instruction from the sales person, from the owners manual and/or from the manufacturer's service department, if need be. Some people may have more than one mower, even from the same manufacturer, and this inscription is a simple way to identify between the types of mowers on hand in case they are different.

I am not looking for a defense here but only to establish if Lou carries any liability for failing to disclose a pertinent piece of information that I needed to know, full well realizing that I did not know that information and also realizing it was never relayed to me by my sister. That he forgot explains why he did not tell me but does it completely excuse him from any liability at all.

This is only important know in trying to get a replacement mower. If he wants new mower and not a reconditioned one, I thought it was fair to get him to contribute some amount, e.g., one third the cost.

Thanks in advance for any further assessment.

 

[JakeB]

You are legally liable if you were negligent. The basic definition of negligence is failing to act reasonably. The question, then, is whether you acted reasonably by putting gas in the mower. In my opinion, you did not act reasonably.

Lou's failure to inform you of what to put in the mower doesn't explain why you took it upon yourself to conclude that it requires only gas. A mixture of oil/gas is not unique. Many lawn mowers require a mixture. Since you weren't told what to put in the mower, the reasonable thing to do would be to ask.

But I admit that you may be able to convince a judge otherwise if this ends up on small claims court.

 

[zoilla]

Good points: Acting reasonable or acting negligent.

My only previous experience with a lawn mower or any other lawn equipment was 25 years ago when I cut grass at our home (and that mower was a straight gas powered Toro). I mentioned that when he was visiting my sister and before she picked up his mower. My sister also emphasized my long absence from grass cutting to Lou when he gave her the instructions to relay to me, arguing to him that he should give me the instructions directly. His retort, she says, was "are you stupid that you cannot remember these few instructions?"

I now know that lawn mowers came in two varieties: gas and gas/oil mix but it was a fact that I never previously encountered. (I have also discovered that gas-oil mowers have been discontinued since approximately 2002.) I acted on the only information I knew from my past experience with lawn mowers. I admit that I was non observant of the fuel cap inscription and really feel stupid about that. So, to what degree do my actions constitute negligence? And, does that degree of negligence make me fully responsible?

Also, to what degree does Lou's failure to tell me about the special fuel requirements of this mower, knowing of my absence from grass cutting since high school days, constitute negligence? Realize, he did not fail to give that instruction to my sister when she picked up the mower but failed through forgetfulness to tell me when he subsequently gave me a primer on operating the mower. To what degree were his actions (or non action) contributory to this accident?

I do not seen this situation going to a judge because I am not contesting my part in the outcome and will find a replacement mower (likely a reconditioned mower) that is in keeping with my obligation. My feeling has been (and I may be wrong) that Lou was partially responsible for this outcome; and if would own up to that and contribute something, he can then have a brand new replacement mower. Am I wrong in my outlook on this? Thanks again for your assessment.

 

[justalayman]

regardless of any percentage of liability on your part or Lou's part, he is only entitled to be made whole which means, he is only due what he lost. That means he is owed an old lawn mower like his that runs or the value of that same old lawn mower.

If he were to get a brand new mower from you for this, he would be unjustly enriched, which means he would be getting something he is not entitled to.

So, he gets one of 3 things:

his mower fixed

the cash value of his mower before you borrowed it

a replacement mower; same age, model, and condition would be ideal but close is often close enough.

So, if Lou wants to put your money towards a new mower and he pay the rest, that is up to him.