Shari Erickson and George Erickson v. U-Haul International, Inc., doing business as U-Haul Company, et al.

The appellants, Shari Erickson and her husband, George
Erickson, sued U-Haul International, Inc., and U-Haul Center
of N .W. Omaha (U-Haul Center). T he district court granted
U-Haul Center's motion for summary judgment, finding that it
owed no duty to the E ricksons. T he court also sustained U-Haul
International's special appearance because the company did
not satisfy the minimum contact requirements for the court to
have jurisdiction.

This appeal raises two issues. First, whether, absent any
special relationship between a lessor of a vehicle and a third
party, the lessor has an affirmative duty to protect the third
party from injury. Second, whether U-Haul International had
sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska to make it fair and
reasonable to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the
company. We conclude that (1) a lessor of a chattel has a duty to
warn third-party users of the dangerous condition of the chattel
and (2) U-Haul International had sufficient contacts to warrant
a Nebraska court's exercise of general personal jurisdiction over it. We reverse, and remand for further proceedings on the
Ericksons' claims.

I. Background

1. The Carstens' Rental
of the U-Haul Truck

Shari's parents, Dale and Judith Carstens, rented a truck
from U-Haul Center to move from Walnut, Iowa, to H erman,
Nebraska. T he truck, known as a 17-foot easy-loading mover,
was licensed in Kentucky.

While operating the truck, Dale attempted to back it up to a
porch, but the loading ramp was a few inches short of the top
step. Shari held the ramp up while Dale attempted to reverse
the truck a few more inches. When the truck was engaged,
however, it first jumped forward, throwing S hari off balance,
and as Dale backed up the truck, it pinned S hari's foot between
the concrete step and the truck's ramp.

In deposition testimony, Shari testified that she did not see
any warning labels on the truck instructing that the ramp should
not be extended while the truck was in motion. In Judith's
deposition,
she testified that when she and Dale rented the truck,
they did not receive a user's guide with any warnings about
using the ramp. After Shari's injury, Judith inspected the truck
for warning labels and the only label she found was a partial
warning label that was "ragged" and hard to read.

The affidavit of the general manager of U-Haul Center contains
a picture that shows a warning sticker below the latch to
the truck's rear door stating, "DAN GER DO NOT extend or
hold ramp while vehicle is in motion. Failure to follow this
warning could result in a serious or fatal injury." T he affidavit
also includes a copy of the "U-Haul Household Moving Van
User Instructions," which U-Haul Center alleged that it gives
to everyone to whom it rents a truck. O n the first page of
the instructions is a warning to "NEVER put the Household
Moving Van in motion while the loading ramp is extended [or]
being held."

2. U-Haul International's Contacts With Nebraska

The assistant corporate secretary of U-Haul International
in an affidavit, averred that U-Haul International, a Nevada corporation,
has its principal place of business in Phoenix,
Arizona; that it did not own the vehicle the Carstens rented;
that it was never qualified to do business in Nebraska and did
not employ anyone in the state; and that it does not possess any
real estate in Nebraska or have a registered agent, maintain any
office or bank accounts, conduct any meetings, or perform any
kind of services in N ebraska.

U-Haul International, however, is the parent company and
owns all of the stock of U-Haul Company of Nebraska (U-Haul
Nebraska) and U-Haul Company of Kentucky, which owned the
truck involved in the accident. U-Haul Center is a rental center
of U-Haul Nebraska. U-Haul International owns the trademark
used in N ebraska and displayed on all U-Haul trucks in the
state. Also, U-Haul International operates a toll-free telephone
number and Web site accessible from Nebraska.

Under the contract it had with U-Haul Nebraska, U-Haul
International provided all rental contracts and other forms and
stationery for the operation in Nebraska. It was also under
contract with U-Haul Nebraska to provide accounting, recordkeeping,
technical, and advisory services. Finally, it coordinated
the exchange of rental equipment between U-Haul Nebraska
and other rental centers and prepared all federal and state
tax reports.

* * *

A duty, in negligence cases, may be defined as an
obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect,
to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.
When determining whether a legal duty exists for actionable
negligence, a court considers (1) the magnitude of the risk, (2)
the relationship of the parties, (3) the nature of the attendant
risk, (4) the opportunity and ability to exercise care, (5) the
foreseeability of the harm, and (6) the policy interest in the proposed
solution.

[9-11] T he duty of reasonable care generally does not extend
to third parties absent other facts establishing a duty. T he common
law has traditionally imposed liability only if the defendant
bears some special relationship to the potential victim.10
Regardless of whether a duty of reasonable care exists, a duty to
warn cannot be imposed absent a special relationship.11

(a) Duty to Warn

[12] T he Restatement (Second) of Torts addresses the duty of
a supplier of chattels:

One who supplies directly or through a third person a
chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those
whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with
the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probable
use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by a person for whose use it is
supplied, if the supplier

(a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or
is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied,
and

(b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use
the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition,
and

(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its
dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to
be dangerous.12

Therefore, under § 388 of the Restatement, a supplier has a common-
law duty to warn expected users that a chattel may be dangerous.
T he comments to § 388 show that the term "supplier"
includes lessors. And § 407 of the Restatement specifically
extends the duties imposed by § 388 to lessors.13

This court has adopted and applied § 388 in finding liability
against a manufacturer.14 In Libbey-Owens Ford Glass Co. v.
L & M Paper Co.,15 a corporation purchased a forklift, which
overheated and caused a fire. T he corporation was unaware that
the forklift's resistor coil could heat to 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit.
The corporation sued the forklift's manufacturer for the damage
caused by the fire. We held that the manufacturer acted negligently
because it failed to warn the corporation or the distributor
about the forklift's heating propensity. We cited § 388 to support
our decision.

* * *