Crane Co. v. Davies

• Decision Date: 26 March 1942
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 978.
• Citation: 242 Ala. 570,8 So.2d 196
• Parties: CRANE CO. v. DAVIES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So.2d 196

242 Ala. 570

CRANE CO. v. DAVIES.

6 Div. 978.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 26, 1942

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1942.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Sadler & Sadler, of Birmingham, for petitioner.

J P. Mudd, of Birmingham, opposed.

BROWN Justice.

This is an action on the case by a tenant against a manufacturer alleged to be "engaged in the business of 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."

The case was tried and submitted to the jury on count 1 of the complaint, which, in short, avers that plaintiff's lessor the owner of the house in which plaintiff held a leasehold interest, purchased from Charles A. Mandy, doing business as Mandy Plumbing Company, "a boiler, heating and furnace equipment, assembled or manufactured by the defendant," and engaged said Mandy to install "said boiler, heating and furnace equipment in said house, and the said Charles A Mandy, or his servants, agents, or employees, did so install said boiler, heating and furnace equipment in said house." "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 purposes for which said boiler, furnace, and heating equipment were manufactured or assembled by the defendant. * * *

"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., [the lessor] by the defendant." [Italics supplied.]

That said boiler, furnace and heating equipment manufactured or assembled by the defendant " as aforesaid" while being used or operated "in the usual and customary manner and for the purposes for which said boiler, heating and furnace equipment had been manufactured or assembled and distributed by the defendant, said boiler or heating and furnace equipment exploded or bursted, and as a proximate consequence thereof plaintiff was injured and damaged." [Italics supplied.]

The defendant pleaded the general issue, in short by consent, with leave, etc. There was a judgment for plaintiff and the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment was affirmed. 8 So.2d 189. The case is here by certiorari.

The evidence, as found and stated by the Court of Appeals, was:

"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. * * *

"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...