Crane Co. v. Davies

• Decision Date: 07 October 1941
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 706.
• Parties: CRANE CO. v. DAVIES.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

8 So.2d 189

30 Ala.App. 471

CRANE CO. v. DAVIES.

6 Div. 706.

Alabama Court of Appeals

October 7, 1941

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1942.

Reversed and Remanded May 12, 1942.

Certiorari granted by Supreme Court in Crane Co. v. Davies (6 Div. 978) 8 So.2d 196.

The complaint alleges in substance as follows:

Defendant was engaged in the business on manufacturing, assembling and selling to dealers and merchants plumbing and heating equipment and supplies, including boilers, to be resold or distributed by said dealers and merchants to the public, for the use by said public in and about the ordinary purposes for which said plumbing, heating and furnace equipment and supplies, including boilers, are customarily used.

Prior to December 16, 1938, one Herbert A. Davies, Sr., the plaintiff's father, purchased a boiler, heating and furnace equipment, assembled or manufactured by the defendant, and said boiler, heating and furnace equipment was purchased by said Herbert A. Davies, Sr., for use in a house owned by said Herbert A. Davies, Sr., but which was then in the lawful possession of the plaintiff as his home. Said boiler, heating and furnace equipment was purchased from Charles A. Mandy, doing business as the Mandy Plumbing Company, and said Herbert A. Davies, Sr., upon the suggestion and recommendation of defendant, engaged said Mandy to install said boiler, heating and furnace equipment in said house, and said Mandy, his servants, agents or employes, did so install same.

It is averred that said boiler, furnace and heating equipment and supplies, manufactured and assembled by the defendant, were not reasonably safe for use by the public, including the plaintiff, when used in the usual and customary manner, but on the contrary, said boiler, furnace and heating equipment were imminently or inherently dangerous and likely to explode or burst and cause injury and damage to the public, including the plaintiff, when used and applied in the usual and customary manner, and for the purpose for which said boiler furnace and heating equipment were manufactured or assembled by the defendant. And, it is averred that such danger and likelihood of exploding and causing injury or damage to the public was known at said time to the defendant, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have been known to the defendant, and the likelihood of exploding and causing damage was not known to the plaintiff, and was not revealed to the plaintiff or to the said Herbert A. Davies, Sr., by the defendant. It is further averred that on the date in question, while plaintiff was a guest in the home of his father, located close to the house in which said boiler furnace and heating equipment and supplies were installed as aforesaid, and while same was being used or operated in said house in the usual and customary manner, and for the purpose for which same had been manufactured or assembled and distributed by defendant, said boiler or heating and furnace equipment exploded or burst, as a proximate consequence of which plaintiff was injured and damaged as alleged.

Plaintiff ascribes his injuries and damages to the negligence of defendant in this, that knowing said boiler, and furnace and heating equipment, when used in the usual and customary manner, were imminently or inherently dangerous and likely to explode or burst and cause damage to the public, including plaintiff, defendant negligently caused or allowed same to be used on said occasion without notifying plaintiff or said Davies, or exercising reasonable diligence to notify plaintiff or said Davies that same, when used in the usual and customary manner, were imminently or inherently dangerous and likely to explode or burst and cause danger to the public, including plaintiff.

These charges were refused to defendant:

"The Crane Co. would not be liable for any error of design made in the piping layout drawn at the Crane Co. plant."

"If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Mr. Davies used the boiler before the installation and test had been completed, and before it was delivered to him for use, and that the injury resulted proximately therefrom, you must find for the defendant."

Sadler & Sadler, of Birmingham, for appellant.

J. P. Mudd, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SIMPSON, Judge.

This was an action in tort against the defendant (appellant) for damages to the household goods and to the leasehold interest of the plaintiff (in the house) by reason of a boiler explosion in the heating system of his dwelling house. The plaintiff rented the house from his father.

The wrong complained of was that the heating equipment, furnace boiler and supplies manufactured and furnished by defendant for the heating system were imminently or inherently dangerous when put to the use intended, which dangerous condition was known to defendant and not made known, but was unknown to the plaintiff or to Mr. Davies, Sr., owner of the house. From a judgment for the plaintiff in the circuit court, this appeal is taken.

Oral arguments of respective counsel upon original submission, and their written briefs and arguments here, ably presented to this court the issues involved and the contentions of the parties.

Appellant urges that a reversal be declared because of the refusal by the trial court of certain special written charges, including the general affirmative charge, and for allowing the expert testimony of Mr. Davies, Sr.

We will endeavor to set out the pertinent evidence upon which the plaintiff seeks to rest his recovery.

Before making certain contemplated alterations to the house which was to be remodeled, Mr. Davies, Sr., consulted a representative of Crane Company, who had called upon him, as to the size and character of heating plant suitable for the building. This representative assured him that defendant had just the suitable equipment for establishing in the house a proper heating system. After taking the contemplated plans for the remodeled house for the purpose of laying out designs for a complete heating system therein, the defendant prepared blue prints and plans for such plant, showing the piping layout, sizes, connection, etc., of same, the boiler to be used and other instructions as to the installation of the system and delivered them to Mr. Davies, Sr. An estimate of the cost of the material was also given him. It was understood that the boiler and radiators should be billed through a friendly plumber, the company suggesting a Mr. Mandy as such plumber. The pipes and fittings were purchased from defendant through Virginia Bridge Company, of which Mr. Davies, Sr., was branch manager.

The house was remodeled and the heating system installed therein substantially according to plan, Mr. Davies, Sr., doing the carpenter work and installing the pipes and Mr. Mandy installing the boiler, valves and radiators. The heating plant was known as a closed hot water system, circulation therein being controlled by a "booster pump" actuated automatically by room temperature.

On December 14th the work was completed. The weather became cold, so that night, after checking the gauges and observing that the system was apparently in satisfactory working order and ascertaining that Mandy's men had already had a fire burning in the furnace, Mr. Davies, Sr., replenished the fire with a small amount of coke (about 20% of furnace capacity) to prevent freezing of the system during the night. Later that night the boiler exploded, resulting in considerable damage to the house and its furnishings. The house was enveloped in steam, heard to escape at the time of the explosion. The break was in the rear of the boiler where the water line from the house reentered it.

Mr. Davies, Sr., is an engineer of extensive experience, having received his civil and mechanical education in engineering at well known universities of the country about thirty years previously. Since then he has been engaged in his profession and for many years with his present employer, which engages in structural work of all kinds. He has had experience in the supervision and operation of steam boilers and as an incident to his structural work has had some experience in heating plants. He has had special training in carpentry and joinery. We think and hold that his qualifications sufficiently appear to allow expert testimony as to the cause of the explosion. Walker v. Stephens, 221 Ala. 18, 127 So. 668; W. T. Adams Machine Co. v. Turner, 162 Ala. 351, 50 So. 308, 136 Am. St. Rep. 28; Alabama Consol. Coal & Iron Co. v. Heald, 168 Ala. 626, 53 So. 162; Caldwell-Watson Foundry & Machine Co. v. Watson, 183 Ala. 326, 62 So. 859.

The testimony of Mr. Davies, Sr., and that of his expert witness, Boisclair, was that the system, with the boiler, as designed by the defendant, was inherently or intrinsically dangerous in that there was no reverse acting aquastat or other safety device to maintain proper circulation of the water through the system. The tendency of this evidence further established that the booster pump being actuated only by room temperature, the water could not circulate by reason of thermal differences; that the heat generated was concentrated upon the water in the boiler which gradually reduced its level below the crown sheet, thus creating in the boiler steam at high pressure which held the water from the boiler until the room temperature should become low enough to actuate the booster pump. Then when this lower temperature was reached the booster pump automatically started forcing cold water into the overheated boiler, whereupon it flashed into steam, the ratio of expansion being about 1700 to 1. As a result the casting of the boiler cracked, hence the explosion.

Evidence for the defendant sought to establish that the...