Barnthouse v. California Steel Buildings Co.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1963 |
| Citation | 215 Cal.App.2d 72,29 Cal.Rptr. 835 |
| Parties | Nancy Jo BARNTHOUSE, a minor, by her Guardian ad litem, D. C. Barthouse, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA STEEL BUILDINGS CO., a copartnership, and California Steel Buildings, Inc., a corporation, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 170. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Chinello & Chinello and John D. Chinello, Sr., Fresno, for appellants.
Crowe, Mitchell, Hurlbutt & Clevenger and Edmund C. Hurlbutt, Visalia, for respondent.
This appeal is taken from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding $10,000 to Nancy Jo Barnthouse, a female minor child, as damages for personal injuries resulting from falling through openings between the seat board and the back rest and behind the top row of grandstand seats at the Madera County Fairgrounds to the ground 30 feet below. Defendants-appellants, California Steel Buildings, Inc., a corporation, and its predecessor, California Steel Buildings company, a copartnership, raise two issues on appeal, (1) the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict and the judgment, and (2) error in giving and refusing instructions.
Facts pertinent to this opinion may be summarized as follows: That the grandstand was constructed in 1953 by the appellant copartnership, an independent contractor; that it was accepted and paid for by the County of Madera which had furnished plans and specifications approved by the State Board of Architects; that the appellant corporation is the successor of the appellant copartnership; that the condition of the grandstand, insofar as is here relevant, was the same on June 11, 1959, the date of the fall, as it was upon completion in 1953.
As constructed, the grandstand consists of an all-metal structure with tiers of wooden seats, broken by aisles to and including the next-to-the-top row. The top row of seats is continuous. A metal roof or canopy covers the top. From the outer edge of the roof extending downward to a point approximately level with the floor in front of the top row of seats is a metal backing or siding. The distance from the back of the seat rest to the metal backing is 7 inches and from a level approximately even with the seat boards the distance is 14 inches. This area behind the top row of seats to the metal backing is not floored. In front of all seats and in the aisles is wooden floor decking of 2-inch by 12-inch boards with no opening greater than 1 inch. The seat consists of two wooden boards each 6 inches in width, making a 12-inch seat from front to back. A 3-inch by 6-inch board mounted on a pipe column forms the back rest. The open space between the top of the seat boards and the bottom of the back rest is 10 inches, uniform throughout all seats, including the top row. Thus, there is a 14-inch horizontal open space behind the top row of seats at the seat level and a 10-inch vertical space between the seat boards and the bottom of the back rest. On June 11, 1959, the plaintiff, who was then 4 years and 10 months old, while attempting to seat herself on the top row of seats, fell through these spaces to the ground below.
At the inception of trial the minor plaintiff received $7,000 and plaintiff D. C. Barnthouse, her father, received $2,000 covering his consequential damages, from defendants County of Madera, Madera County Livestock Association, a corporation, Madera County Fair, and Chowchilla Union High School District, and the action was dismissed as to those defendants.
From our review of the large body of decisional law relating to the prolongation of liability of an independent contractor whose work has been completed for injuries sustained as a result of defective construction work, the following rule applicable to the facts briefly recited above emerges: When the work has been performed in accordance with plans and specifications furnished by the owner which the contractor is bound to follow and the completed work has been accepted by the owner, the contractor is not liable to a third person for injuries resulting from a structural defect. It is said that the injury-causing defect is the proximate result of fault in the plans and specifications and not the result of negligence on the part of the contractor (Johnson v. City of San Leandro, 179 Cal.App.2d 794, 801, 4 Cal.Rptr. 404). The rule enunciated in the Johnson case finds support in language contained in Chance v. Lawry's, Inc., 58 A.C. 373, 384, 24 Cal.Rptr. 209, 215, 374 P.2d 185, 191, where the court distinguished Johnson from the case before it and stated: 'This is not a case where 'an accident is the result of work done by a contractor in conformity with plans and specifications * * * and is the result of fault in such plans and specifications * * *.'' In our case the plans and specifications were prepared or caused to be prepared by the County of Madera. Thus, the primary question is whether or not the grandstand was constructed in accordance therewith.
Paragraph 3 of the specifications provides for the method of constructing the seats. It is then provided, 'Provision shall be made so that there is no opening through the floor under seats larger than 1"
Plaintiff contends that the quoted portion of the specification required defendants to deck or floor behind the top row of seats, and that failure so to do removed defendants from the protection of the Johnson rule. Defendants contend that the plans and specifications required them to deck under but not behind the top row of seats and that the plans and specifications were carefully carried out. They urge that the implied finding of the jury to the contrary is not supported by the evidence.
'As has so frequently been said, it is the general rule that on appeal an appellate court (1) will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent; (2) will not weigh the evidence; (3) will indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences which favor sustaining the finding of the trier of fact; and (4) will not disturb the finding of the trier of fact if there is substantial evidence in the record in support thereof.' (Berniker v. Berniker, 30 Cal.2d 439, 444, 182 P.2d 557, 561.)
Plaintiff argues that the evidence consisting of the specification itself, photographs of the grandstand in its existing condition, a jury view of the premises and testimony of Mr. McCleary, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Littlehale v. EI du Pont de Nemours & Co.
...defect is in the plans and specifications and not the result of negligence on the part of the contractor." Barnthouse v. California Steel Bldgs. Co., 215 Cal.App.2d 72, 29 Cal.Rpt'r 835, 836 In any event, it appears that the MacPherson rule is limited in cases where a manufactured product i......
-
Soave v. National Velour Corp.
...occasions. See Southland Enterprises, Inc. v. Newton County, 838 So.2d 286, 290 (Miss.2003); accord Barnthouse v. California Steel Buildings Co., 215 Cal.App.2d 72, 29 Cal.Rptr. 835 (1963); Black v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., 94 Idaho 755, 497 P.2d 1056 (1972); Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2......
-
Moon v. Winger Boss Co., Inc.
...change in condition. We reject that view as it may apply to the specific facts in this case. Barnthouse v. California Steel Buildings Co., 215 Cal.App.2d 72, 29 Cal.Rptr. 835 (1963), was a case involving injuries to a small child who fell through the opening between the seat board and backr......
-
Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage Dist. by and through Reclamation Board v. Reed
... ... , acting by the through THE RECLAMATION BOARD of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellant, ... Thomas H. REED et al., Defendants-Respondents ... 50 to 60 feet wide on the Reager property, fenced on both sides with steel posts and barbed wire. The levee is 30 to 35 feet wide at its base and ... ranch are a dwelling [215 Cal.App.2d 63] house and agricultural buildings. A fenced road leads eastward towards the pasture lands bordering the ... ...