Step One:Review the below fact pattern that you will use for your federal complaint

Step Two: Answer the following questions:

• Based on what you have learned in Torts and Contracts, what claims do you think the plaintiff can bring, and who can the plaintiff bring them against?
• What defenses do you believe can be asserted against those claims?
• Your answer should include an explanation of the legal standards (or elements) for the claims and defenses, and an application of the relevant facts to those standards to support your conclusions.

FACT PATTERN

Paul Petersen (plaintiff) sues Danfield's Auto Express (defendant), alleging that the defendant's negligence in repairing his car caused him personal injury, financial damages, and the total loss of his car.

Paul Petersen is a resident of Northern California and the owner of a BMW car worth approximately $20,000. On February 4, 20xx, he took his car to Danfield's Auto Express in Northern California for an oil change. Danfield's is a chain of retail facilities that works on all types of cars throughout Northern California and Oregon and is incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters and administrative offices in Oregon.

While Paul's car was being worked on, the mechanics at Danfield's noticed some problems and recommended that Paul have some repairs done. The repairs included completely replacing all of the parts for the front and rear brakes, and performing a 60,000 mile maintenance service. The maintenance services included a transmission service, fuel injector cleaning, cooling system flushing and refill, replacing heater hoses, recharging the air conditioner, and various filter replacements. The total cost for the work was $3,248, of which the brakes cost $1,650. Paul paid by check and agreed to have all of the work done.

When he picked his car up, he received a "lifetime guarantee" on the brake parts, which was a document that Paul and the Danfield's service manager both signed. Among other things, the document said, "If your brake parts should wear out due to normal wear and tear during the life of your vehicle, Danfield's will replace them at no charge for the parts." The document also included a 30-day workmanship warranty for all of the labor performed by Danfield's that stated: Danfield's warrants that your service repairs are made with the quality and skill required to meet industry standards and to protect your safety. We promise that your car will be fixed right the first time. If the automotive repair or service was performed improperly, then we will re-perform the service at no additional charge to you, during the established warranty period.

Paul and his girlfriend started their trip on February 5, 20xx, the day after his car was ready. They were about 45 miles into Nevada when Paul noticed that his car did not seem to be running quite right. He slowed down to pull over and the brakes started squeaking and grinding. He called Danfield's where the work was done, and was told that the squeaking is probably normal, but the grinding may be an issue, and he should bring the car back in for them to look at the brakes, or go to any nearby Danfield's store. Paul was worried that the car was not safe to drive back to California, and there are no Danfield's stores in Nevada.

He found a small, local repair shop nearby called Derek's Car Repair. Derek's only has one location, it is solely owned by Derek, and it is incorporated in Nevada. He told the owner, Derek Davison, who is a mechanic, that his car was not running right and the brakes were making noises. He asked Derek to take a look at the car. Derek initially declined, saying that he does not work on BMWs, but Paul explained his situation and said that he just wanted to be sure that the car was safe to drive. Derek took a look and said that he did not see anything out of the ordinary, and that the brake noises could just be the new brake pads settling in. He again reminded Paul that he does not work on BMWs, and told him that he should take it back to Danfield's to make sure it is safe. Paul was relieved that nothing was seriously wrong. He told Derek that he would head back to Danfield's where the work was done in Northern California. It is about 200 miles away.

Things went well for the first hundred miles, but while they were in Lake City, Northern California, the car began to overheat and various dashboard lights started flashing. While trying to get off the road, Paul noticed the cars in front of him had stopped suddenly. He slammed on the brakes, but they did not stop the car. He swerved to miss the cars in front of him, went off the road into an embankment, and the car flipped over. Paul and Patricia were both taken to the hospital. Both had injuries to their backs, necks and faces from the collision. Paul also had a broken hand and arm. They were both released from the hospital after a day of care and observation. Paul required home nursing assistance for two weeks because he was unable to move around well, and he could not perform many of the daily tasks necessary to care for himself. After the two week period, he began physical therapy. His doctor told him that he will have permanent problems with his neck and back that will require ongoing physical therapy, and perhaps surgery. His back and neck pain, and the cast on his hand and arm, also prevent him from working.

Paul is a web application specialist who helps people utilize the internet and social media. After a few weeks, he tried to return to work, but he was unable to do so because of the pain and the inability to use his hand and arm. His employer told him that they had to replace him and he was fired from his job. Paul's job paid him $85,000 in annual salary.

During his hospital stay, Paul managed to call his bank to stop payment on the check that he wrote to Danfield's to pay for the work they performed. Paul's auto insurance company had his car towed to a repair shop to estimate the damages and cost to repair the car. The repair shop determined that improper installation of a heater hose caused the overheating, and improper installation of the brakes caused the brake failure. It noted that the improper installation of both would be fairly obvious to a trained mechanic. It also determined that the cost to repair the car is greater than the value of the car, so it recommended totaling the car.

Paul Petersen sues Danfield's Auto Express for negligence, alleging that the defendant's negligence in repairing his car caused him personal injury, financial damages, and the total loss of his car.