## Facts

- Kenneth G. Thrash and Kathryn Thrash financed a used vehicle through a retail-installment contract and security agreement granting Credit Acceptance Corporation (CAC) a security interest.
- The agreement permitted CAC to repossess the vehicle by legal process or self-help, but required that, in doing so, CAC not breach the peace or unlawfully enter onto the debtors’ premises.
- The Thrashes made January and February 1997 payments but missed March and April payments; they testified CAC agreed they could make the March and April payments by the end of April.
- Before the end of April, CAC hired Gulf Coast Recovery Services & Storage, Inc. (GCRS) to repossess the vehicle and instructed GCRS not to contact the Thrashes beforehand.
- In the early morning of April 24, 1997, GCRS entered the property and attempted to drag the vehicle from under a carport; because the front wheels were locked, GCRS poured liquid dish-washing soap on the driveway to reduce friction.
- GCRS did not inform anyone that it had placed the slippery liquid on the driveway.
- During the repossession, Kathryn called Kenneth at work believing the vehicle was being stolen; Kenneth returned home, ran toward the back door, stepped in the soap, fell, and allegedly suffered severe injuries.
- The Thrashes sued CAC and GCRS for negligence and wantonness based on leaving a clear lubricant on the carport/driveway.
- The trial court granted CAC summary judgment; the Thrashes settled with GCRS and appealed only the judgment for CAC.

## Issues

1. Whether a secured creditor that contractually conditions self-help repossession on not breaching the peace or unlawfully entering the debtor’s premises assumes a nondelegable duty, permitting liability for acts of an independent-contractor repossession company.
2. Whether evidence that the repossession company created an undisclosed slippery hazard on the debtor’s premises created a genuine issue of material fact on negligence or wantonness sufficient to defeat summary judgment for the creditor.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the summary judgment for CAC and remanded.
- The court held that CAC’s contractual self-help repossession right, expressly limited by prohibitions on breach of the peace and unlawful entry, imposed a nondelegable duty concerning the manner of repossession.
- The court held the record contained sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that duty was breached through GCRS’s repossession conduct, precluding summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A party is generally not vicariously liable for an independent contractor’s negligence, but remains liable when the duty at issue is nondelegable.
- A secured creditor’s self-help repossession must be carried out without breaching the peace and without unlawful entry; contractual adoption of these limits can impose a nondelegable duty on the creditor regarding repossession conduct.
- Allegations of breach of the peace or unlawful entry may function as factual predicates supporting negligence or wantonness claims arising from repossession activities.
- Summary judgment is improper when, viewing evidence in the nonmovant’s favor, a genuine dispute exists as to whether repossession conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm on the debtor’s premises.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court held that CAC could not avoid liability by outsourcing repossession to an independent contractor where CAC’s contract imposed nondelegable limits on self-help repossession, and the evidence permitted a jury to find the repossession was conducted in a way that created a hidden, dangerous condition causing injury.


Thrash v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 821 So. 2d 968 (Ala. 2001)