Dauer v. Aerojet General Corp.
Decision Date | 20 January 1964 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Velta Lucille DAUER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AEROJET GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 10666. |
William A. Sitton, Johnson, Davies & Greve, Sacramento, for appellants.
Patrick J. McCarthy, Richard A. Case, Sacramento, for respondents.
This is an appeal by Aerojet General Corporation from a judgment awarding plaintiffs and respondents damages for the wrongful death of Edward Dauer, the husband of Velta Lucille Dauer, and the father of Edward Dauer, Jr., and Madeline Dauer, now Madeline Stanton, and from the order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Edward Dauer, an employee of D. Zelinsky & Sons, was killed as a result of burns received from an explosion in a tank in which he and another workman (by the name of Woolen) were applying Amercoat Number 23, a mixture containing volatile and inflammable solvents.
Aerojet and Zelinsky entered into a contract whereby Zelinsky agreed to apply Amercoat Number 23 to the inner surface of two new steel fuel storage tanks. The coating was to protect the surface of the tanks from the corrosive action of the fuel to be stored therein. The contract provided that Zelinsky would provide all material, labor and equipment. There was no express provision for the taking of precautions by Zelinsky in the performance of the work. Aerojet did not give Zelinsky any information or instructions regarding precautions which should be taken, though Aerojet did have knowledge of the characteristics of Amercoat Number 23. A short time prior to the incident here, a hydro sump pit was repaired with Amercoat Number 23. At all times while Amercoat Number 23 was being sprayed a fire engine and crew were present. Aerojet furnished explosion-proof equipment, and during the spraying a blower fan was used to remove the vapors created by applying the solution.
An expert testified that the circulation of air is the best and only complete precaution to use to prevent accumulation of explosive vapors when Amercoat Number 23 is used in confined spaces. There was testimony that a tank was a hazardous area in which to apply Amercoat. As stated by respondents' expert:
The tank in which the accident happened was 30 feet in diameter and 24 feet from base to top. It had a floating roof, which was designed to float up and down as the fuel in the tank was increased or decreased. In order to coat the higher surface of the interior the roof was lowered, thus exposing the surface to be worked on. In order to work on the lower surface the roof was raised and supported by some sort of stanchions at an elevation of about seven feet. Thus, when working in the lower area the painters were in a dark, confined compartment. Under these conditions the danger was apparent that heavier than air inflammable gases exuding from the drying paint would pocket and concentrate in the lower part of the tank unless special precautions were taken.
The explosion occurred while Dauer and a co-worker (Woolen) were applying Amercoat Number 23 to the lower interior of the tank. No fan for the circulation of air or blower was used nor was explosion proof lighting equipment used.
We are satisfied that the record discloses substantial support for a finding of the jury that respondent Aerojet was liable for the damage caused by the failure of Zelinsky to exercise reasonable care. For as stated in Woolen v. Aerojet General Corp., 57 Cal.2d 407 at page 410, 20 Cal.Rptr. 12 at page 15, 369 P.2d 708 at page 711 ( ) our Supreme Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mezerkor v. Texaco, Inc.
...263, 271--273, 41 Cal.Rptr. 728; Gaw v. McKanna (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 348, 351--353, 39 Cal.Rptr. 428; Dauer v. Aerojet General Corp. (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 175, 180--182, 36 Cal.Rptr. 356; Mason v. Case (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 170, 176--177, 33 Cal.Rptr. 710; Jean v. Collins Construction Co. ......
-
Grahn v. Tosco Corp.
...even if the employee is injured doing the very work the independent contractor was hired to perform. Dauer v. Aerojet General Corp. (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 175, 36 Cal.Rptr. 356 also involved an employee of the independent contractor, Zelinsky, hired to paint the interior of fuel storage tank......
-
Aerojet General Corp. v. D. Zelinsky and Sons
...errors in jury instruction. (Woolen v. Aerojet General Corp., 57 Cal.2d 407, 20 Cal.Rptr. 12, 369 P.2d 708; Dauer v. Aerojet General Corp., 224 Cal.App.2d 175, 36 Cal.Rptr. 356.) Before the retrial of either lawsuit, Aerojet entered into settlements with the plaintiffs. In the present proce......
-
De Cruz v. Reid
...98, 46 Cal.Rptr. 572; Castro v. Fowler Equipment Co., supra, 233 Cal.App.2d 416, 422, 43 Cal.Rptr. 589; Dauer v. Aerojet General Corp. (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 175, 183, 36 Cal.Rptr. 356; Tate v. Superior Court (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 238, 246--249, 28 Cal.Rptr. 548; Chick v. Superior Court (196......