Charles Seago Mechanical Contracting Co., Inc. v. Mobile Homes of Mississippi, Inc.
| Citation | 196 S.E.2d 346,128 Ga.App. 261 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 47906,No. 1,47906,1 |
| Parties | CHARLES SEAGO MECHANICAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. v. MOBILE HOMES OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Whether a manufacturer of mobile homes was negligent in failing to securely cap off a gas outlet designed for gas stoves back of or underneath the framework of an electric stove used in its stead was a jury question.
2. A defendant charged with failure to exercise ordinary care in inspecting the gas line while hooking it into a gas supply source and a manufacturer charged with negligence in the construction of the system may, on proper proof, be concurrently liable to the owner for an explosion due to the failure to discover and close a concealed petcock. It was error to grant the motion for summary judgment of the third party defendant.
Martel purchased a house trailer from a franchise dealer for Mobile Homes of Mississippi, Inc. It was placed in a trailer park and the defendant Seago Contracting Company was called to hook up the gas. The workman made the exterior connection, and then inquired what gas appliances the plaintiff had, to which he replied that the only thing operating on gas was the heating system. The workman lit the pilot light; then, being unable to light the furnace, disconnected that burner. Some twenty minutes later the plaintiff smelled gas and turned off the pilot light also. Later in the day the plaintiff's wife began cooking on the electric stove in the kitchen. There was an explosion, flames came up from behind the stove, and the trailer eventually caught fire and was substantially destroyed, along with certain personal property. The plaintiff alleged that his loss was due to Seago's negligence in that its employee failed to check out the gas lines inside the trailer to be sure there was no leakage, and in turning the gas on. Seago filed a third party complaint against Mobile Homes of Mississippi alleging negligence of the manufacturer in failing to properly cap off a gas outlet back of the electric stove, which would have served as a conduit for a gas stove, had one been installed. The existence of this pipe was unknown to the plaintiff and apparently also to the defendant employee. The third party defendant, moving for summary judgment presented the affidavit of its manager, Hodge, to the effect that (a) he examined the pipe behind the stove a few days after the fire and observed that it was capped with a brass nozzle equipped with a positive cutoff, and also that the manufacturer had placed a metal plate outside the trailer with the warning
The motion for summary judgment was sustained and Mobile Homes dismissed as a third party defendant, from which ruling the defendant Seago appeals.
Fulcher, Hagler, Harper & Reed, J. Walker Harper, David H. Hanks, Augusta, for appellant.
Calhoun & Kernaghan, William C. Calhoun, Augusta, for appellees.
1. There appears to be little doubt but that the fire was caused by gas leaking through the pipe intended for connection with a gas cooking stove. Whether such a stove had been originally installed and then removed in favor of electric before the trailer was purchased, or whether it was merely placed there for future convenience, does not appear and is not important. The electric stove had been placed about two inches from the inner wall and there was nothing to indicate the existence of the pipe; whether it should have been discovered by the workman in the course of a pipe inspection is something that in the scanty state of the evidence in this record we cannot decide. Whether the cutoff valve had been left open at the factory or was simply unsecured so that it came open in transit is also a moot question. Escaping gas is a dangerours instrumentality. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield
...137(1), 217 S.E.2d 163 (1975); Ford Motor Co. v. Hanley, supra, 128 Ga.App. at 317(6), 196 S.E.2d 454; Charles Seago etc., Co. v. Mobile Homes, 128 Ga.App. 261, 264, 196 S.E.2d 346 (1973); J.C. Lewis Motor Co., supra, 85 Ga.App. at 543, 69 S.E.2d 816. Cf. Firestone Tire & c. Co v. Pinyan, 1......
-
Aretz v. United States
...Baggage & Cab Company v. Atlanta Taxicabs, Inc., 104 Ga.App. 89, 121 S.E.2d 175; Charles Seago Mechanical Contracting Co., Inc. v. Mobile Homes of Mississippi, Inc., 128 Ga.App. 261, 196 S.E.2d 346; Hodge v. Dixon, 119 Ga.App. 397, 167 S.E.2d 377. Proximate causation generally presents an i......
-
Harden v. U.S.
...anticipated); Medi-Clean Services, Inc. v. Hill, 144 Ga.App. 389, 241 S.E.2d 290, 293 (1977); Seago Mechanical Contracting Co., Inc. v. Mobile Homes, 128 Ga.App. 261, 196 S.E.2d 346, 349 (1973). As the trial court pointed out, Clay had helped to create the situation of danger that existed. ......
-
Wade v. Polytech Industries, Inc.
...Obstetrics, etc., 194 Ga.App. 508(1), 390 S.E.2d 856, aff'd 260 Ga. 569, 398 S.E.2d 16, supra; Charles Seago, etc., Co. v. Mobile Homes, etc., 128 Ga.App. 261, 264(2), 196 S.E.2d 346; see Evans-Watson v. Reese, 188 Ga.App. 292, 294, 372 S.E.2d 675; Union Carbide Corp. v. Holton, 136 Ga.App.......