Day v. National U.S. Radiator Corp.
| Citation | 241 La. 288,128 So.2d 660 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 45059,45059 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Parties | Mrs. Cecelia LeBlanc DAY, Individually and as Natural Turix, etc. v. NATIONAL U.S. RADIATOR CORPORATION et al. |
Watson, Blanche, Wilson, Posner & Thibaut, David W. Robinson, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
Sanders, Miller, Downing, Rubin & Kean, Wex S. Malone, Baton Rouge, Spencer & Whalen, Washington, D.C., amici curiae.
Borron, Owen, Borron & Delahaye, Baton Rouge, for intervenor-appellee.
H. Alva Blumfield, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.
Mrs. Cecilia LeBlanc Day instituted this suit on her own behalf and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Judy Dianne Day and Randall Joseph Day, to recover damages for the death of Willie Day, her husband and the father of her children. Day was fatally injured as a result of a boiler explosion which occurred while his employer, Vince Plumbing & Heating Company, a subcontractor, was installing a hot water system in a new building of the tuberculosis hospital at Greenwell Springs, Louisiana. Several persons, firms, and corporations, with their insurers, were named defendants. The district court gave judgment for plaintiff against Wilson & Coleman, the firm of architects on the building, and its insurer, 1 and held the other defendants relieved of any liability. The Court of Appeal likewise gave judgment for plaintiff against the architects and their insurer, increased the awards in favor of plaintiff and her children, and affirmed the judgment dismissing the suit against all other defendants. 2 See La.App., 117 So.2d 104. We granted certiorari on application of the architects and their insurer. 3
The Louisiana State Building Authority entered into a contract with defendant Wilson & Coleman, a firm of architects, to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of the New Patients' Building at the Greenwell Springs Tuberculosis Hospital. Upon completion of the plans and specifications by the architects a contract was entered into with Charles Carter & Company, Inc., a general contractor, for construction of the building. The contractor in turn negotiated a subcontract with Vince Plumbing & Heating Company, in which the latter undertook to perform all mechanical work as per plans and specifications (which were made part of this subcontract), including heating, plumbing, etc., necessary to complete the central heating system and the domestic hot water system. The boiler which exploded was a part of the domestic hot water system. After installation the boiler was lighted by an employee of Vince to test its operation. The explosion occurred shortly afterwards, and Willie Day, plaintiff's husband, who was standing near by, was scalded to death.
In their contract with the building authority the architects' services were to consist, among other things, of 'supervision of the work' as indicated by a schedule set forth in the contract. 4 According to this schedule they were to prepare 'complete working drawings, and specifications for architectural, structural, plumbing, heating, electrical and other mechanical work'. In this schedule they further bound themselves to exercise 'adequate supervision of the execution of the work to reasonably insure strict conformity with the working drawings, specifications, and other contract documents', and this supervision was to include, among other things, '* * * (b) inspection of all samples, materials, and workmanship * * * (d) checking of all shop and setting drawings (e) frequent visits to the work site * * *'. (Italics ours.)
Pursuant to the authority given them by this contract the architects employed a firm of consulting engineers, Chesson, Forrest & Holland, at a fee of 3 per cent of the cost of mechanical and electrical work, to be paid from the proceeds of the 6 per cent fee which the architects were to receive from the owner. Under their contract with the architects the consulting engineers, among other things, prepared for the architects plans and specifications for all mechanical and engineering equipment to be incorporated in the building. It was the duty of these engineers to consult with and advise the architects about the proper mechanical and electrical equipment for the building. They were to examine all Shop drawings submitted by the contractor or the subcontractor and report to the architects, and make a final inspection and report to the architects when the general contractor had completed the work. The architects admitted that they relied on the consulting engineers' technical ability for the installation of the mechanical and electrical equipment, of which the boiler that exploded was a part, because they themselves were without the specialized knowledge to determine whether the mechanical equipment was installed in a safe way.
The architects' specifications plainly stipulated that the hot water heater or boiler was to be provided with a thermostat, and that the contractor was to 'equip hot water heaters with temperature and pressure relief valves'.
The specifications further provided that in the installation of the domestic hot water system the contractor before proceeding with the work . The provision quoted was found in that part of the specifications dealing with plumbing. In Section 1 of the general contract specifications under the heading 'Shop Drawings' it was provided that four copies of shop drawings or data for all mechanical work should be submitted, and two corrected or approved copies returned to the contract, and that no shop drawings should be submitted by any subcontractor directly to the architects or to the architects' consulting engineers. This section further specifically provided: 'Shop drawings marked 'Approved as Noted', are assumed to be Approved for fabrication or placing orders.' (Italics ours.)
As stated previously, the general contractor entered into a subcontract with Vince Plumbing & Heating Company. The plans and specifications were made a part of this subcontract and were referred to as 'the contract documents'. The subcontract recited that the subcontractor was thoroughly familiar with the contract documents and agreed to be bound by them. 5
After obtaining the subcontract Sam Vince, sole owner of Vince Plumbing & Heating Company, furnished to the architects through the general contractor, as provided in the specifications, a Brochure for their approval of certain equipment. The terms 'brochure' and 'shop drawing', as shown by this record, are interchangeable and mean the same thing. In other words, a brochure was considered by all as a shop drawing, as that term was used in the specifications. This brochure was submitted by the architects to the consulting engineers, who approved it with certain exceptions. This qualified approval, according to the evidence, was tantamount to rejection in toto. Vince then submitted a second brochure. This brochure also was referred to the architects' consulting engineers, and on the advice of the engineers was likewise disapproved by the architects. These two brochures were disapproved for causes which were in no way related to the subject of the boiler explosion. A third brochure was submitted to the architects, who, without submitting it to their consulting engineers, endorsed it 'Approved as Noted' and returned it to Vince. All these brochures were prepared for Vince by Amstan Supply Division of American Radiator and Sanitary Corporation. The approved brochure did not specify or list a pressure relief valve for the hot water boiler which subsequently exploded.
After receiving the approved brochure or shop plan Vince ordered the material and equipment shown in it, and proceeded with the installation of the domestic hot water system. In making the installation of the hot water heater, a part of this system, Vince failed to follow the plain provision of the specifications that the hot water heater or boiler should be equipped with a thermostat and with a temperature and pressure relief valve. He installed the hot water boiler without a pressure relief valve, and instead of putting the thermostat and the temperature relief valve on the boiler he installed these safety devices on a hot water storage tank. After the installation of the hot water system Vince, to check his own work, caused the boiler to be lighted for a preliminary testing, and the explosion ensued which resulted in the death of Vince's employee Day.
At this point it may be well to note that Vince made this preliminary test without informing either the architects or the consulting engineers that the hot water system was ready for inspection, and did not request any of these persons to make an inspection at any time before the explosion.
It is clear from this record, as shown by the testimony of the experts, that because of the method of installation the explosion of the boiler was inevitable. Among other things, it was not equipped with a pressure relief valve as called for by the specifications, and, further, if this boiler had been equipped with such a valve, the explosion could not have occurred. As said by the Court of Appeal, the experts 'all stated that, assuming all component parts performed their respective functions, the explosion would nevertheless have eventually occurred because of the absence of a pressure relief valve on the system'.
The Court of Appeal, 117 So.2d 104, found that Vince, the subcontractor, was guilty of gross and inexcusable negligence; 6 that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable insofar as the architects were concerned; that the architects were negligent both in failing to inspect the domestic hot water system during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Orso, Bankruptcy No. 94-11491.
...In view of these direct precedents, we must decline the plaintiffs' invitation to follow dicta in Day v. National U.S. Radiator Corp., 241 La. 288, 128 So.2d 660, 666 (1961)" (citations omitted)); Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Winegardner and Hammons, Inc., 714 F.2d 5......
-
Associated Engineers, Inc. v. Job
...9 N.Y.2d 829, 215 N.Y.S.2d 773, 175 N.E.2d 350 (1961), affirming 10 A.D.2d 539, 205 N.Y.S.2d 60 (1960); Day v. National United States Radiator Corp., 241 La. 288, 128 So.2d 660 (1961); Wetteland v. Reyna Constr. Co., 42 Misc. 2d 991, 249 N.Y.S.2d 593 (Sup.Ct. 1963), or to consultation and r......
-
Vidrine v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co.
...from a third party. Day v. National-U.S. Radiator Corporation, 117 So.2d 104 (La.App.1st Cir. 1960), reversed on other grounds, 241 La. 288, 128 So.2d 660; Andrus v. Great American Insurance Company, 161 So.2d 113 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1964), writs refused. See also International Paper Co. v. Ar......
-
Canter v. Koehring Co.
...or employer. 26 La.L.Rev. 526. This court inferentially, if not explicitly, applied this principle in Day v. National U.S. Radiator Corp., 241 La. 288, 128 So.2d 660 (1961). There, architects were sought to be held liable for the death of a construction employee due to a boiler explosion in......
-
Are We Allowing the Thing to Speak for Itself? Linnear v. CenterPoint Energy and Res Ipsa Loquitur in Louisiana
...this effect of a 1963) (―It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively . . . .‖); Day v. Nat‘l U.S. Radiator Corp., 128 So. 2d 660, 664 (La. 1961) (―When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to a case, the accident which has caused plaintiff‘s damages makes ou......