Coakley v. Prentiss-Wabers Stove Co.

• Decision Date: 16 October 1923
• Citation: 195 N.W. 388,182 Wis. 94
• Parties: COAKLEY v. PRENTISS-WABERS STOVE CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

182 Wis. 94

195 N.W. 388

COAKLEY

v.PRENTISS-WABERS STOVE CO.^a1

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 16, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Columbia County; Chester A. Fowler, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Coakley against the Prentiss-Wabers Stove Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover for injuries sustained as the result of the explosion of the gasoline container of a portable gasoline stove.

The complaint set out that defendant was the manufacturer of a certain gasoline stove called the “Auto Kamp Kook Kit”; that it sold one of its stoves to the Yahr & Lange Drug Company, a wholesaler, of Milwaukee; that the wholesaler sold it to M. H. Stuelki, a retailer, of Kilbourn, Wis.; and that Stuelki sold the stove to Henry Field, a son-in-law of plaintiff. It was then alleged that, while plaintiff was using the stove at the home of her son-in-law, the gasoline container suddenly exploded, covering her with burning gasoline. The particular grounds of negligence alleged were that the stove “was so negligently, carelessly, and unsafely manufactured and constructed by the said Prentiss-Wabers Stove Company as to become imminently dangerous to life and limb when used for cooking purposes under pressure,” and that the container was constructed “of an inferior and very low grade material called turn plate”; that the container is attached to the stoves “by unskilled labor, without any adequate test being made of their freedom from defects or of their strength of powers of resistance.”

The stove company denied all allegations of negligence, and alleged that any injuries plaintiff may have received were the result of her own negligence.

The type of stove in question was made primarily for camping purposes and outdoor use. The frame of the stove is of steel. It is fitted with two burners, inclosed in a light steel box, a cover of which is closed when the stove is not in use. Attached to the outside of the box on one end is the gasoline container. It holds one quart, and is about four inches away from the nearest burner. The container is cylindrical in form, the cylinder being made by crimping the edges of the metal. Over each end is fitted a cap, the edges overlapping about a quarter of an inch, and solder being used to seal the joint. On the top of the container is the opening through which it is filled. This vent is also arranged so that a small pump may be inserted for the purpose of driving air into the tank. Near the vent is a gauge to register the pressure. The stove was advertised to give best service at from 12 to 15 pounds pressure.

The explosion of the container and the injuries to plaintiff were undisputed. Shortly after the explosion the stove, which had been placed on the kitchen range, was thrown into the yard while still in flames by a neighbor. At the trial it appeared that the end of the container toward the front of the stove was not in place. Plaintiff's son-in-law testified that he picked up the stove from the yard the evening of the accident and examined it; that the cap was not on the container; and that it was found in the kitchen by some one.

Plaintiff introduced testimony to prove that there was not a sufficient overlap of the edges of the cap and the body of the container; that the rough edge of this joint was soldered, and that the proper method of sealing the joint was by “sweating”; and that the solder used was of the poorest grade. There was further testimony tending to show that the contents of the container would be warmed by the heat radiating from the burner, and that as the contents were thus heated the pressure would greatly increase.

Plaintiff's daughter testified that a moment before the explosion, she saw a blue flame coming from the end of the container. A great deal of conflicting testimony was given as to whether the joint was soldered or “sweated,” and whether the method of fastening the cap was suitable for containers to be used for gasoline on a stove operating under pressure.

In a special verdict the jury found that the cap of the container was not so fastened as to render the stove reasonably safe in view of the use of it contemplated by defendant; that the failure to fasten on the cap in a reasonably safe manner was the proximate cause of the injuries; and that there was no want of care on the part of the plaintiff that proximately contributed to produce her injuries. Damages were assessed at $5,225. Judgment was rendered accordingly.

Goggins, Brazeau & Graves, of Wisconsin Rapids, for appellant.

Cannon, Bancroft & Waldron, of Milwaukee (Daniel H. Grady, of Portage, of counsel), for respondent.

JONES, J. (after stating the facts as above).

At the trial most of the testimony related to the question whether the method of fastening the cap to the container was the proper method, or whether it was one which should have been known by the defendant to be dangerous in view of the kinds of use to be expected. When the parts of the stove were received from the manufacturer by defendant they were assembled and connected together, and skilled mechanics were not employed for that purpose.

There was a large amount of testimony as to the manner in which the cap was soldered to the container. The material used as solder was one-half lead and one-half tin, which has much less tensile strength than the solder composed of copper and zinc ordinarily used for sealing joints in containers under pressure.

[1] There was testimony to the effect that it is not customary or proper to seal the joints of a gasoline container without either sweating, crimping, or riveting. There was evidence on the part of defendant that the joint was sweated; that is, the solder ran beyond the edge of the cap and between the edge of the cap and the container, and was not confined to the edge. On the contrary, the testimony of several expert witnesses for the plaintiff was that it was merely a soldered joint. They were competent witnesses, although they had made no analysis because there was not enough solder adhering to the container to enable an analysis to be made. Their opinions were based on an examination of the container and the cap in question and the conceded facts.

There was expert testimony tending to show that an ordinary soldered joint with a flange of only a quarter of an inch on the cap is not a safe method for a container of gasoline to be fed to a flame under pressure; that the continued heating and cooling in the ordinary use of the stove would tend to weaken the soldered joint.

Defendant's counsel gave proof that it was its practice to make tests before the stoves were placed on the market to ascertain whether there were any leaks and whether the connections were firm, but it was contended by counsel for plaintiff that the mode of testing was not adequate to determine whether the container was reasonably safe for use in the manner contemplated. The proof for defendant showed that a large number of the stoves had been sold and that but few complaints had been made. The stove and the container were shown to the jury, and are here as exhibits. They show the close proximity of the container to one of the burners, and the marks on the cap and the container show that they have been subjected to great heat. We have only given an outline of the testimony and it would seem to serve no useful purpose to set it out in great detail. The case was fairly and ably tried and the jury found that the cap of the container was not so fastened as to render the stove reasonably safe in view of the use of it contemplated by the defendant and the trial judge approved the finding.

It will be observed that no question was submitted calling for a direct answer as to whether the defendant had any actual knowledge of the alleged defect. No request was made for any such question by either party, and they seemed to acquiesce in the form of the verdict. It is claimed by counsel for defendant that the failure to allege and prove actual notice of the defect should have prevented a recovery. In his opinion the trial judge thus stated the question involved:

“If to support recovery it must be shown that the defendant actually knew of any defect in the particular tank the weakness of which was found to have caused the explosion, then judgment must go for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, for there is no evidence to support a finding of any such knowledge. But, if the law be that the defendant was bound to know because it ought to know, under duty to the public to put out a reasonably safe article in view of the fuel and use contemplated, the method employed in fastening on the caps and the extent of the overlap, then I think judgment should go for plaintiff upon the verdict.”

In support of their claim counsel for defendant cited the following cases: Bright v. Barnett & Record Co., 88 Wis. 299, 60 N. W. 418, 26 L. R. A. 524;Zieman v. Kieckhefer E. Co., 90 Wis. 497, 63 N. W. 1021;Kerwin v. Chippewa S. Mfg. Co., 163 Wis. 428, 157 N. W. 1101, L. R. A. 1916E, 1188;Miller v. Mead-Morrison Co., 166 Wis. 536, 166 N. W. 315;Hasbrouck v. Armour & Co., 139 Wis. 357, 121 N. W. 157, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 876. Since the facts in the present case are quite different from those in any case which has come before the court, it may be proper to briefly review these cases.

In the Bright Case a scaffold was made by the defendant which it knew was to be used by the plaintiff and other workmen over a bin 70 feet high. A plank having a large knot broke, resulting in the injury to the plaintiff. This plank had not been inspected or tested before it was used. In the opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Orton it was held that, notwithstanding the liability of the manufacturer for such defects is in general only to the person with whom he contracts, liability might rest on two well-established principles of law: (1) It was held that the case might rest on the implied invitation of the defendant to the plaintiff to...