A member of the Coin Laundry Association recently called me regarding an adverse ruling in small claims court, which resulted in a $770 judgment against the laundry owner.
Apparently, an attendant employed by the owner assisted a customer – at the customer’s request – in drying this individual’s two down comforters. The customer indicated he needed to run an errand and asked the attendant to remove the comforters from a large-load washer and place them into a 45-pound dryer.
Upon the customer’s return, he found that the comforters were not dry to his liking and the 45-pound dryer was then in use and not available. The customer asked the attendant if he could use a 30-pound dryer, and the attendant responded affirmatively without noting signs or “help sheets” explaining the details of turning the comforters inside out periodically, using medium heat and other instructions.
It appears that the comforters were ultimately scorched.
It also is important to point out that the comforters were labeled “dryclean only,” which was not observed until after the completion of the drying cycles.
The laundry owner reported that the judge held that, if an attendant provides advice to customers, such as which machine might be used for a particular purpose, the attendant becomes an “expert” and is responsible for the outcome, notwithstanding (1) the customer washed the items affixed with labels stating “dryclean only,” (2) there were disclaimer signs present and (3) “help sheets” were posted in various locations throughout the laundry.
Whenever a defendant holds himself or herself out to be specially qualified, advice can be actionable. As one early case noted:
“When one of the parties possess, or assumes to possess, superior knowledge or special information regarding the subject matter of the representation, and the other party is so situated that he may reasonably rely upon such supposed superior knowledge or special information, a representation made by the party possessing or assuming to possess such knowledge or information, though it might be regarded as but the expression of an opinion if made by any other person, is not excused if it be false.”
The concept and consequences of “superior knowledge,” whether actual or presumptive, arise under many circumstances.
A manager of an apartment building, to induce a woman to rent an apartment, advised that the apartment was safe. The woman was ultimately assaulted in the building, and she sued. The court noted, “The claim of safety was… an opinion made by one with presumed expert knowledge and, thus, can support an action.”
In another case, the Hearst Corporation was sued for promoting a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval regarding a product that did not live up to the endorsement. The court noted:
“Having voluntarily involved itself into the marketing process, having in effect loaned its reputation to promote and induce the sale of a given product, the question arises whether respondent can escape liability for injury which results when the product is defective and not as represented by its endorsement. In voluntarily assuming this business relationship, we think respondent Hearst has placed itself in the position where public policy imposes upon it the duty to use ordinary care in the issuance of its seal and certification of quality so that members of the consuming public who rely on its endorsement are not unreasonably exposed to the risk of harm.”
The moral of the story? When expressing an opinion as to how to wash or dry clothes in your coin laundry, do not approach the subject casually. Be sure of the basis of your opinion, or refer the customer to the garment manufacturer.
[This column is intended to provide general information only. If you have a specific question regarding the law, you should contact an attorney.]
#BusinessManagement #Public #FeaturedArticle #Article #PlanetLaundry
