Brooks v. Hill-Shaw Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 7288.,7288. |
| Citation | 117 F.2d 682 |
| Parties | BROOKS v. HILL-SHAW CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Joseph D. Ryan and Marshall Solberg, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before SPARKS, MAJOR, and TREANOR, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a personal injury suit, notwithstanding a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding her entitled to $19,566.66 damages.
The action was brought to recover for injuries sustained when a glass coffee maker filled with boiling water and coffee broke, badly burning appellant. The complaint charged negligence in the construction and manufacture of the coffee maker,1 and appellant relied upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to sustain its charge of negligence.
At the time the accident occurred, March 18, 1937, appellant owned and operated a restaurant and tavern in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. She had been in this business for about nine months, and at the location where the accident occurred for about four and a half months. When she first went into the business she was furnished a set of coffee makers by a business man who sold her all the coffee she required for her business. In the beginning she used one set of the brewers. When she started in at her new location she needed more, and was furnished a new unit similar to the first. These coffee makers were called "Vaculators." Each of these units consisted of a two-burner electric stove, and two coffee brewers, each with an upper and a lower bowl. According to directions accompanying them, when they are to be used, the lower bowl is filled with water to a specified height, which is then heated. The upper bowl extends into a funnel or tube which may be fitted into the lower bowl. It is prepared for operation by placing a filter at the opening of the bowl into the tube or funnel, and then putting in a specified amount of finely ground coffee. As the water in the lower bowl approaches the boiling point, the upper flask is fitted down into the lower bowl, with a rubber gasket around the top of the tube to hold it firm. The expansion of steam in the lower bowl causes the water in it to rise through the tube and filter into the upper bowl, where it comes in contact with the coffee. When no more water will rise, the apparatus is removed from the heat, the coffee is stirred, and as the contents cool, the water runs back through the filter, down the tube into the lower bowl.
There is no dispute over the fact that the original units used by appellant were manufactured and assembled by appellee and by it sold to one Sohm, doing business as the Century Tea and Coffee Company, who in turn delivered them to appellant, to be used by her free of charge as long as she continued to use his products. Appellee included a set of directions for its use with each unit. There was no identifying mark on the glass bowls. Replacements were to be made whenever needed, and one such replacement was made two days before the accident, when Sohm delivered a new upper flask to take the place of one broken by appellant in handling. This was no doubt delivered complete with a new rubber gasket to fit it into the lower bowl, as indicated by the catalogue on replacement parts, and appellant's testimony that she thought the bushing came with the bowl.
Appellant's story of the accident was that she was in the kitchen and had begun to prepare four bowls of coffee, following the directions in every respect. She testified that the apparatus was all apparently in good condition, with no apparent cracks or defects. She had placed the upper flasks in the lower bowls and was waiting for the water to rise so that she could remove them from the heat, and as she stood near the cabinet on which the units were kept, one of the upper flasks suddenly shot up from its lower bowl, striking her shoulder and spilling the hot water and ground coffee all over her right arm, shoulder, and chest. She grabbed the flask and flung it on the cabinet, screaming for help. There was no one in the kitchen with her when the accident occurred. Various persons in the restaurant and elsewhere around the premises testified that they heard a sharp noise like an explosion before appellant's scream. Appellant was badly burned. Appellee does not question the seriousness nor the permanence of her injuries.
No one, not even appellant herself, saw what actually happened before she was struck — she was not looking at the apparatus when the bowl shot up. After the accident, the upper flask was found on the cabinet where appellant had placed it, with the bowl intact. The tube, broken off below the rubber gasket, was found in the lower bowl. This upper flask was itself broken later, in transit from St. Louis to Chicago, so it was not introduced in evidence at the trial, although the tube and the top of the funnel part, with the rubber gasket, were before the trial court and have been examined by us.
In view of the fact that the principal question presented by this appeal is as to the applicability of the doctrine, res ipsa loquitur, to the facts here involved, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts further. Appellant presented testimony tending to prove that appellee made the equipment and sold it, though not to her; and that that equipment exploded, injuring her seriously. She herself testified that she followed directions furnished by appellee for the use of the equipment in every respect; and that that equipment was apparently in good condition, so far as she could see. She made no attempt whatever to prove any defect in the glass, nor did she make any specific charge as to defectiveness, relying solely on the fact that an accident occurred while she was using the equipment for the uses and in the manner intended, to prove that the equipment must have been defective or the accident would not have occurred.
Appellee moved for a directed verdict at the close of appellant's evidence, and again at the close of all the testimony. The court reserved its rulings on both motions, and submitted the cause to the jury, together with a special interrogatory requested by appellee, "Do you find that the coffee brewer, which is alleged to have caused injury to the plaintiff, when used with ordinary care was an inherently or imminently dangerous instrumentality?" The jury answered this interrogatory in the affirmative, found appellee guilty, and assessed the damages at $19,566. Appellee thereupon moved for judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
...Texas Co., 89 F.2d 291; United States v. Porter Bros. & Biffle, 95 F.2d 694, certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 601, 83 L.Ed. 382; Brooks v. Hill-Shaw Co., 117 F.2d 682; The Mercier, 5 F.Supp. 511; The President Wilson, 5 684; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Rood, 163 Ill. 477, 25 N.E. 238; Chicago Union ......
-
Mitchell v. Four States Machinery Co., Gen. No. 49534
...is also adequate evidence to support plaintiff's theory of the case. The same distinction is applicable to the case of Brooks v. Hill-Shaw Co., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 682, 685. Defendant attaches significant weight to the fact that the switch control knob found on the press at the time of the acc......
-
Lynch v. Galler Seven-Up Pre-Mix Corp.
...v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, supra; Dunn v. Hoffman Beverage Co., 126 N.J.L. 556, 20 A.2d 352 (E. & A.1941); Brooks v. Hill-Shaw Co., 117 F.2d 682 (7 Cir. 1941) cert. den. 314 U.S. 610, 62 S.Ct. 61, 86 L.Ed. 490 (1941). We are unable to conclude therefore that error was committed ......
-
May v. Columbian Rope Co.
...period of trouble free use destroyed any inference of negligence in the manufacture of the machine. Similarly, Brooks v. Hill-Shaw Co., 117 F.2d 682 (7th Cir. 1941), held that res ipsa loquitur did not apply to the explosion of a coffee maker manufactured by defendant, plaintiff admitting t......