Air Control Engineering, Inc. v. Hogan
| Decision Date | 17 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 17820,17820 |
| Citation | 477 S.W.2d 941 |
| Parties | AIR CONTROL ENGINEERING, INC., Appellant, v. Dennis C. HOGAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
L. W. Anderson, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
K. Mark Pistorius, Thompson, Coe, Cousins, Irons & Porter, Dallas, for appellee.
Hogan's action against Air Control Engineering, Inc. was to recover damages resulting from an explosion of an air conditioning unit owned by Hogan and which had been serviced and repaired by Air Control. Hogan alleged, Inter alia, that Air Control was negligent in failing to reset the limit switch on the unit to a setting low enough to shut down the compressor if excessive pressure began to build up in the air conditioning system and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the explosion and resulting damages.
The case was tried before the court and a jury and submitted on four special issues. In special issue No. 1 the court asked the jury:
'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in question Air Control Engineering, Inc. failed to reset the limit switch to a setting low enough to shut down the compressor prior to rupturing pressure within the air conditioning system?'
In response the jury answered 'We do.' In special issues 2 and 3 the court inquired as to whether or not such failure, if they had found same in response to special issue No. 1, was negligence and a proximate cause of the occurrence in question. The jury gave affirmative answers to each of these questions. In response to special issue No. 4 the jury found the damages to be $786.50. Based upon this verdict the trial court rendered judgment for Hogan against Air Control for the amount found by the jury.
In its first point on appeal appellant Air Control contends that the trial court erred in failing to sustain its objection to the submission of special Issue No. 1 on the ground that same assumed a disputed issue of fact, namely that the high limit switch in question was capable of being reset in the field, when all of the evidence was to the contrary on said fact issue. Resolution of the question presented, as well as other points hereinafter discussed, requires a brief summary of the material testimony.
Appellee Hogan testified that because of malfunction of the air conditioning unit in his home he contacted Air Control Engineering and asked them to send a representative to his home to do whatever was necessary to restore the unit to proper operation. Donald Ray Elrod, an employee of Air Control, inspected the unit and recommended the replacement of a compressor. The compressor was installed one day and Elrod returned early the next day to check out the unit operation. Shortly after he left the residence the air conditioning unit exploded.
Mr. Stanley Prescott, a design consultant, who operated his own consulting firm, testified as an expert witness on behalf of appellee. Prescott's qualifications as an expert in mechanical and electronic instruments was not questioned by appellant. He testified that he was familiar with the functioning of air conditioners such as the one involved in this case. He inspected the unit at the Hogan residence the day following the explosion and testified in detail to extensive damage in and about the unit. He then described the mechanism of the unit which involved primarily the compression of gas; the cooling of gas and the fan which blows the cool air into the home. The function of the compressor is to take the gas in relative low pressure and compress it to high pressure and remove the heat. When asked what would happen if the pressure is too high he responded:
When asked if there was a device on Mr. Hogan's air conditioning unit which would shut down the unit if the pressure should become too high he responded that there was such a device which was known as a pressure limit switch. When operating properly the pressure limit switch becomes activated when the pressure builds up beyond the set point and causes the air compressor to stop. He testified that the pressure limit switch was adjustable; that the switch itself is a little piece one inch square; that one bolt that holds it up which has a slot in it so that the switch can be moved up and down so that the switch can be adjusted. He said the resetting of the switch in a field situation was practical and easy.
'Q. How do you go about adjusting a switch?
A. You loosen the 2 screws that mount the switch and slide 1 in, far back which positions the point at which the pressure element will activate the switch.
Q. Are any special tools required?
A. A screwdriver; a pair of ordinary pliers to tighten it up.'
Prescott stated that the tests which he made on the compressor unit and on the pressure switch after the explosion indicated that the switch on the air conditioner would activate only after the pressure in the system had increased to a point beyond the test pressure indicated for the unit by the manufacturer. In this connection he said that the high pressure at which the switch would cut off was 575 pounds per square inch and that the lower limit was 515 pounds psi. When asked to state his opinion as to the cause of the explosion he said that it was caused by pressure building up too high on the high pressure side of the air conditioner and that the pressure limit switch was operating at a point above the test pressure indicated for the unit which was 460 psi.
On cross-examination he was asked if he was familiar with how air conditioning people tested the high pressure switches in the field and he replied that he did not know how they would test the switch but he knew how it should be done. He said his examination of the switch indicated the switch had not been reset prior to the explosion.
Elrod, appellant's witness, testified that after installing the compressor he tested the unit and found it to be all right. He said he did not reset the pressure limit switch because the company recommended that the same not be changed. He said if there was anything wrong with the pressure limit switch they were instructed to install a new one rather than reset it in the field. He did not know what caused the explosion.
Appellant's witnesses Weaver and Radford, both experts in the air conditioning business, said that the pressure switch had not been adjusted; that it could have been adjusted by the use of a special ring but that repairmen never attempt to adjust the switches after they have been set by the factory. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upchurch v. State
...3,500 pages in total—once they were admitted, we presume that the jury saw everything contained therein. See Air Control Eng'g, Inc. v. Hogan , 477 S.W.2d 941, 946 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1972, no writ) ("The jury had all of the evidence before it and is presumed to have considered same in arrivi......
-
Amara v. Lain
...Villa Nursing Home, Inc. v. Smith, 674 S.W.2d 343, 348 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Air Control Engineering, Inc. v. Hogan, 477 S.W.2d 941, 946 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1972, no writ). Appellee Lain has failed to prove as a matter of law that he was not grossly neg......
-
Golden Villa Nursing Home, Inc. v. Smith
...considered as evidence of proper care, it does not preclude a showing that the custom itself tolerates negligence. Air Control Engineering, Inc. v. Hogan, 477 S.W.2d 941, 946 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1972, no writ) (citing Kuemmel v. Vradenburg, 239 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1......
-
Republic-Vanguard Life Ins. Co. v. Walters, REPUBLIC-VANGUARD
...the appellant's investigation met the standard required of a prudent person was within the province of the jury. See Air Control Eng'g, Inc. v. Hogan, 477 S.W.2d 941, 946 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1972, no writ) (whether standard of care was met is jury question); Restatement (Second) of Torts ......