Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Williams

• Decision Date: 01 March 1955
• Docket Number: No. 1599.,1599.
• Citation: 111 A.2d 874
• Parties: THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, a corporation, Appellant, v. Otho Holland WILLIAMS, doing business as Otho Williams Buick, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

111 A.2d 874

THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, a corporation, Appellant, v. Otho Holland WILLIAMS, doing business as Otho Williams Buick, Appellee.

No. 1599.

Municipal Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Argued January 31, 1955.

Decided March 1, 1955.

Saul M. Schwartzbach, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

William H. Clarke, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

An automobile belonging to a man named Vetter was badly damaged by fire, after being repaired by a garage keeper. Vetter's subrogee, appellant insurance company, sued the garage. The question is whether the trial court ruled properly in directing a verdict for defendant.

Vetter's car was a 1953 Buick which was then a few months old, had run about 11,000 miles and was in excellent condition. Preparing for a trip to Florida, he took it to the shop of defendant, a Buick dealer, for a "major motor tune up." After driving away from the shop he noticed a very strong odor of gasoline. The next morning, desiring to allow a warm up period, he started the motor and left the car. A moment later flames appeared beneath the hood and by the time firemen arrived the motor had been completely destroyed. He returned the automobile to defendant's garage and noticed that the float plug from the carburetor was lying on the bottom panel below the carburetor.

An automobile mechanic who was familiar with Buick cars testified that a major tune up consisted of cleaning the carburetor and carburetor filter, adjusting the carburetor, cleaning the spark plugs, tightening the exhaust, removing and replacing the head gasket, and checking the wiring system. A hypothetical question was put to the witness and later excluded, but before the ruling was made the trial judge directed a series of questions to the witness dealing with the matter of causation. The witness outlined several ways in which a fire could have started, including some which could have resulted from negligence on the part of defendant, but he could not say what caused the fire.

Plaintiff also called as a witness the mechanic who had done the work on the automobile. Like the preceding witness he said that the motor had been so badly burned that the starting place of the fire could not be determined. He said that he did nothing to the carburetor except make two adjustments.

We must apply the familiar and accepted rule that on a motion for instructed verdict the court must accept as true all evidence which tends to support plaintiff's case and must adopt every inference which might reasonably be deduced therefrom. We think the evidence was such that a jury could reasonably have found that the automobile would not have caught fire without some fault on the part of defendant. The relative newness of the car, the perfect condition of the motor before the repair job, the complete absence of any gasoline odor, the nature of the work done by defendant, the gasoline odor manifesting itself immediately thereafter, the fire breaking out the very next morning, the carburetor plug being found out of place, all combined to make out a prima facie case.

It is true that there was no direct testimony as to what caused the fire, but in our opinion such is not always required. Courts will take judicial notice that gasoline vapors are highly inflammable and even explosive, and that this characteristic combined with the spark from the electrical system provides the force which propels an automobile. Courts will also take judicial notice that automobile motors in a...