## Facts

- Joseph Bryant Diaz drove his parents’ Volvo to Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc. dba Jiffy Lube for an oil change on October 30, 2004.
- The oil-change package included a tire-pressure check; Jiffy Lube offered tire rotation and inspection only as a separate service for an additional fee.
- Bryant purchased only the oil-change service and did not recall requesting any tire work or tire-condition inspection.
- On November 21, 2004, while driving on a wet roadway, Bryant lost control of the Volvo; it left the road and rolled over.
- Bryant suffered severe injuries, including paralysis.
- Plaintiffs alleged that worn tread on the inside portion of the rear tires caused or contributed to the crash and that Jiffy Lube was negligent for failing to inspect the tires and warn of dangerous wear.

## Issues

1. Whether, during a routine oil change that includes checking tire pressure, a quick-lube service provider owes a legal duty to inspect tires for tread wear and warn of dangerous conditions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Jiffy Lube.
- It held that, on these facts, Jiffy Lube owed no duty to perform a safety inspection of tire tread wear or to warn about such wear.
- Because duty was absent as a matter of law, the negligence claim failed without reaching breach, causation, or damages.

## Legal Principles

- The existence of a duty is a question of law and depends on the relationship of the parties and the nature and scope of the defendant’s undertaking.
- A service provider must use reasonable care in performing the tasks it undertakes, but that obligation does not automatically extend to unrequested, broader safety inspections beyond the contracted service.
- Under voluntary-undertaking principles, any duty assumed is limited to the scope of the undertaking; checking tire pressure does not, by itself, create a duty to inspect tire tread or internal wear patterns and warn of defects.
- Courts may decline to recognize an expanded common-law duty where imposing it would materially transform a limited service into a comprehensive vehicle-safety inspection.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that an oil-change provider who incidentally checks tire pressure, without undertaking or being retained to perform tire inspection services, has no legal duty to inspect tire tread for wear or warn the customer of hazardous tread conditions.


Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., 230 P.3d 718 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)