Arnold v. Edelman, 49683
| Decision Date | 13 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 49683,No. 1,49683,1 |
| Citation | 375 S.W.2d 167 |
| Parties | Hattie ARNOLD, Respondent, v. John H. EDELMAN and T. Lowrie Lyon, a Partnership, d/b/a Edelman-Lyon Company, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Roy F. Carter, Kansas City, Sprinkle, Carter, Sprinkle & Larson, Kansas City, of counsel, for appellants.
Albert J. Yonke, Kansas City, for respondent.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
Action for damages for personal injuries sustained by a city employee using the revolving doors in City Hall in Kansas City. Plaintiff Hattie Arnold sued the contractors who installed the doors, John H. Edelman and T. Lowrie Lyon, a partnership, for $100,000. A jury returned a verdict for $36,000. Defendants have appealed from a judgment against them for $30,000, to which figure the verdict was reduced by remittitur.
Plaintiff charged negligent failure of defendants to set the panic-exit device on the revolving doors at the proper pressure to prevent collapse of the doors while being used in the normal manner.
City Hall is 30 stories high. Multi-story buildings create draft problems. They act like a chimney. Heated air rising through elevator shafts and stair wells (called 'wind stack draft') creates a pressure which tends to draw air into the building through doors and openings on the first floor. This pressure allows infiltration of cold air. Ordinary swinging doors, which are constantly being opened and closed, do not bar these drafts. Swinging doors are hard to open against such pressure, which at times amounts to 50 pounds. Revolving doors, which can be activated with from 2 to 5 pounds pressure, were designed to solve this problem. They admit persons to a building without any free passage of air, overcome the pressure and eliminate influx of cold air. Persons using a revolving door must pass through in single file. This limits the number who can pass through in a given time. In case of an emergency people will try to go through both sides of the center post and jam or bunch up, making exit impossible and creating a dangerous condition.
For safety purposes revolving doors have a built-in safety device called a panic-exit device. This is a spring-loaded ball that fits into a socket at the top and bottom of each of the four leaves, which separate the sections of the revolving door. When excess pressure is applied the ball is forced out of the socket and the leaf releases and folds into an outward position. This leaves two clear openings, one on each side of the center post, allowing a constant stream of people to make an emergency exit without having to wait to go through the revolving door one at a time. A 'tensioning arrow' at the top of the doors makes it easier to force the ball out of the socket and thus fold the wings. By turning the tensioning arrow the pressure on the wings is reduced 5/16.
A panic-exit device may be set to release upon application of pressure to the outer stile of the door within a range of from 60 to 180 pounds, as governed by building regulations. An effort is made to adjust the mechanism tight enough not to collapse the doors in ordinary use by pedestrian traffic, but not so tight as to prevent their collapse in emergencies. The optimum release adjustment involves several factors which determine the pressure exerted by wind stack draft: the difference between the temperature within and without the building; the number of openings in the building; the number of elevators being operated; the number of windows open; the height of the building; its location with respect to other buildings; prevailing winds; amount of pedestrian traffic through the doors, and the exhaust and ventilating systems of the building.
Defendants entered into a contract with the city to replace the revolving doors in City Hall and construct and install new ones and related mechanisms, and to furnish all labor and materials to do all work necessary to complete the improvement according to specifications. The specifications required the wings to be held in radial position by means of a stainless steel ball engaging in the top and bottom disc of each wing, and provided that excess pressure on the wings, greater than 60 pounds and less than 180 pounds, applied on the outer stile at a point 42 inches from the floor, shall force the ball from the socket and leave the wings free to collapse, and that tension shall be adjustable but that its maximum shall not prevent collapse of the wings. It was defendants' responsibility under the contract with the city to examine the site of the work, be familiar with the specifications the conditions affecting the work, the amount of work to be done, and to complete the work according to specifications. Under defendants' contract with the manufacturer, by which defendants were employed and acted as factory representatives, defendants agreed to perform necessary services in connection with the installation and servicing of the product, including the furnishing of erection crews, and to cause the doors to be delivered, assembled and installed, and the manufacturer agreed to pay defendants an agreed sum to cover such work and to pay defendants for 'the reasonable servicing of such revolving doors until final acceptance thereof.'
From the evidence favorable to plaintiff the jury could have found these facts: The manufacturer ships revolving doors from the factory with a moderate setting of tension (85-90 lbs.) on the panic-exit device. The factory setting will take care of normal conditions. If the installer knows there are heavy winds and heavy stack drafts he will take that into account in making the setting when he installs the doors. Load and weather conditions tell the installer whether the tension is set tight enough, or whether the device needs further adjustment. Customarily the installer has to go back to the job and adjust doors after they are installed, depending upon conditions found at the job site, and subject to customers' and building inspectors' requests. It is the installer's duty to go back and readjust the pressure according to conditions.
Jesse Curtis, defendants' employee, installed these doors under defendants' supervision. Defendants were familiar with stack draft and wind conditions around City Hall. Many times they discussed these problems with the factory expert who had a file on the building and had visited there dozens of times, and they had discussed them with the assistant engineer at City Hall. Curtis had no knowledge of these wind conditions. Defendants said nothing to Curtis about 'bad' wind or 'bad' stack draft conditions. The doors came from the factory pre-set. Curtis tightened them 'according to conditions.' He decided what tension the doors should be put on; he set the doors 'to the strength of the doors'; he adjusted them according 'to the condition of the traffic.' He did not, however, take into consideration wind stack or stack draft problems on this job. At trial he said he re-set the tension on installation but did not say at what pressure he set the doors. In his deposition Curtis testified he did not make any setting at time of installation. His employer, defendant Edelman, testified that the factory setting was not changed at time of installation. Edelman acknowledged that the final responsibility was on defendants to adjust the doors 'until they are right or until the City, or whoever [they sold] them to, accepts them'; that he was familiar with the 'bad' wind and stack draft conditions around City Hall which can cause doors to collapse; that defendants 'used the factory setting' of 80-85 lbs., because that setting 'should have been ample.' Defendants 'thought they would hold satisfactorily.' Defendant Lyon testified that the doors were set to 80-85 lbs. pressure when received from the factory; that when defendants finished the installation on October 10 the doors were 'set to around 85' lbs.; that this is a proper setting for average conditions. He admitted that the conditions around City Hall were not average; that stronger winds are encountered there than in other parts of the city; that he knew the winds were severe there but that defendants 'relied on our factory to make the first tension setting'; that defendants 'just installed the doors' and left them set at the factory setting 'until events proved otherwise,' i. e., until the doors collapsed, in which event defendant 'would probably investigate it and find out why.' The installation was completed on October 9. Curtis instructed the city hall engineer how to operate the doors and make adjustments for tension and release tension. Curtis turned over the keys to the doors to the city's engineer on October 10. The public started using the doors at once. Between October 10 and 23 defendants received two complaints from city officials that the doors had collapsed. The city was 'having trouble' with the wings collapsing under wind pressure. Wind conditions were 'bad.' During that period defendant Lyon and city officials discussed the trouble the city had with the old doors collapsing because of 'terrific wind conditions in that area.' Defendant Lyon communicated with the sales manager of the revolving door division of the manufacturer, who knew intimately the conditions that existed at City Hall. They discussed wind and draft conditions. Responding to requests from city officials defendants sent Curtis to City Hall to make adjustments. On his visit October 21 Curtis readjusted and tightened the panic-exit device to a pressure of from 100 to 110 lbs., working on the doors for two hours. Defendant Lyon tested the doors that day and found them set at 100 to 110 lbs., 'just about in the middle range of tension.'
On October 23 plaintiff, attempting to leave the City Hall, started out the north exit through the revolving doors. There was no one in the revolving door when she stepped in. She put both hands on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. Edelman
...by them for the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and obtained judgment for $30,000 damages which was affirmed on appeal. Arnold v. Edelman, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 167. It was admitted that garnishee issued the insurance policy in evidence covering Edelman-Lyon, but garnishee denied liability under a......