Eastin v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

Decision Date16 January 1933
Docket NumberNo. 5212.,5212.
Citation57 S.W.2d 547
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesEASTIN et al. v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Webster County; C. H. Skinker, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Action by Jessie Eastin and another against Phillips Petroleum Company. A verdict was returned in favor of plaintiffs, and from an order sustaining defendant's motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

C. H. Jackson, of Mountain Grove, R. L. Lamar, of Houston, and Williams, Henson & Stone, of Springfield, for appellant.

Mann, Mann & Miller, of Springfield, and R. H. Hudson, of Bartlesville, Okl., for respondent.

SMITH, Judge.

This case is before us on the assignment that the court erred in sustaining the defendant's motion for new trial. The court sustained the motion on the ground that the court erred in refusing defendant's requested instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence offered at the close of the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, and erred in refusing a requested instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence at the close of all the evidence.

This of necessity requires a consideration most favorable to the plaintiff of the evidence offered based upon the pleadings in the case.

The cause of action is based upon a claim for damages to plaintiff's premises by reason of gasoline leaking from a tank buried under the ground and seeping into plaintiffs' well; the important parts of the petition being as follows:

"Plaintiffs, for cause of action, state that on the first day of June, 1929, and at all times since said date, they were the owners of, and resided upon, a certain farm in Wright County, Missouri which was purchased occupied and used by the plaintiffs as a dairy farm, and, on account of the location and the water thereon, was properly equipped as such.

"Plaintiffs further state that on said first day of June, 1929 the defendant, Phillips Petroleum Company, a corporation, maintained and operated, as lessee or licensee, on the premises of Earl Harris and Henry Harris, a copartnership, doing business under the firm name and style of `Harris Brothers, such premises being immediately adjacent to and adjoining upon, the premises of the plaintiffs, a certain gasoline, kerosene and oil tank, pump and filling station, for automobiles, and other consumption; that on said date and continuously thereafter until the filing of this suit, the defendant negligently and carelessly and in violation of its legal duty to these plaintiffs, permitted said tank, pump, and filling station to become defective, so that said tank, pump, and filling station, and its intake pipes, overflow pipes and return pipes, pumps, tanks, leaked and caused to be discharged into the ground large quantities of kerosene, gasoline and oils, and that the defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, of the defective condition of such pump, tanks, and filling station.

"Plaintiffs allege that the defendant carelessly and negligently through its agents and servants, placed large quantities of gasoline and kerosene from time to time in the tanks, pipes and filling station of the Harris Brothers, located, as aforesaid, adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs herein, without inspecting the pipes, tanks and the filling station to ascertain whether or not the filling station, tanks and pipes were defective, and negligently and carelessly failed to ascertain whether or not the tanks and pipes and filling station were leaking and permitting gasoline and kerosene to escape therefrom.

"Plaintiffs further allege that the defendant carelessly and negligently failed to repair its tanks, pipes and filling station, and carelessly and negligently permitted the same, and the construction thereof, to become faulty so that it leaked and permitted large quantities of gasoline and kerosene to escape therefrom.

"Plaintiffs further state that by reason of the escape of large quantities of kerosene, gasoline and oils from said tanks, pumps, and pipes of the defendant, the soil and subsoil beneath plaintiffs' land have become so saturated with such kerosene, gasoline and oils as totally to spoil, ruin and contaminate the waters beneath the land of plaintiffs so that the well of plaintiffs on said premises and the water therefrom is totally unfit for human consumption and use in the operation of said dairy farm, so that plaintiffs are permanently deprived of the use of said well.

"Plaintiffs further state that by reason of the escape of large quantities of kerosene, gasoline and oils from said tanks and pipes of defendant, as aforesaid, plaintiffs' land and soil and sub-soil beneath the same have become so contaminated and saturated that it be impossible for plaintiff to secure upon his land a supply of pure water; that as a result thereof, the plaintiffs are deprived of the right to the comfortable use and enjoyment of said premises as a home and dairy farm, and that by reason thereof the freehold of plaintiffs' estate has been permanently injured and the value thereof greatly depreciated.

"Plaintiffs further state that by reason of the contamination of their said well, as aforesaid, it has been necessary that the plaintiffs haul water for domestic use and for the purpose of watering their stock, from great distances, and that they have incurred great expense in so doing, and have been damaged thereby.

"Plaintiffs further allege that by reason of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, as aforesaid, that their well, which was located upon the porch of their residence, became contaminated with gasoline and kerosene, that the water therefrom was unfit for use and became dangerous, and that on or about the ____ day of July, 1929, the gasoline and kerosene in said well exploded in said well and that their residence was greatly damaged, in this: That the plastering was jarred, broken and shaken loose from their residence, and it was greatly damaged thereby.

"Plaintiffs further state that the defendant, by its agents and servants, brought upon the premises of the said Harris Brothers large quantities of gasoline, kerosene and oils; that the tanks, pipes, and pumps which the defendant placed upon the premises of said Harris Brothers for the purpose of containing gasoline, kerosene, and oils, were defective; that by reason of said defective condition of said tanks, pipes and pumps, large quantities of gasoline, kerosene and oils were permitted to escape, therefrom, and were kept on, upon and under the premises of these plaintiffs, hereinbefore described, so that the soil and sub-soil of plaintiffs' premises became saturated with such gasoline, kerosene and oil.

"Plaintiffs further state that by reason of the saturation and contamination, as aforesaid, of their said premises and the soil and sub-soil beneath the same, with kerosene, gasoline and oils from defendant's tanks, and pipes, they have been deprived of the comfortable use and enjoyment of their premises and that the value of the freehold of said estate has been greatly diminished; all to the damage of these plaintiffs and their residence in the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00).

"Wherefore, plaintiffs pray judgment against the defendant for the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), and for their costs herein laid out and expanded."

The foregoing petition was filed in Wright county, returnable to the February term, 1931. A change of venue was had to Webster county, and at the May term, 1931, the defendant filed the following answer, caption and signature omitted:

"Comes now defendant and for answer to plaintiff's petition filed herein, denies each and every allegation in plaintiff's petition contained and, having fully answered, prays to be discharged with its costs.

"Further answering, defendant alleges that if quantities of kerosene, gasoline and oils, or either of them escaped from the tanks upon the property of Earl Harris and Henry Harris, partners doing business under the firm name and style of Harris Brothers, which fact defendant denies, then defendant alleges that said tanks were placed upon said premises of said Harris Brothers long prior to the 8th day of February, 1929, by the Wilhoit Oil Company, a corporation, under a lease or agreement with said Harris Brothers, the terms of which are unknown to this defendant; that on or about the 8th day of February 1929, the defendant purchased certain property and equipment of the Wilhoit Oil Company, including the tank, pumps, and equipment installed by the Wilhoit Oil Company on the property of the said Harris Brothers; that prior to said 8th day of February, 1929, this defendant had no interest of any kind in and to said tanks, pumps or equipment.

"Defendant alleges that thereafter, on the 1st day of April, 1929, it entered into a certain lease with the said Earl Harris and Henry Harris, partners doing business under the firm and style of Harris Brothers, under the terms of which, it leased to said Harris Brothers, certain equipment, namely: One ten gallon Fry Visible Gasoline Pump; One Ten Gallon Wichita, Jr., Gasoline Pump; One 105 Gallon Kerosene Tank; 2 Crown Globes; One 200 Gallon U. G. Tank and one 550 Gallon U. G. Tank; said lease to commence on the 1st day of April, 1929, and continue thereafter from year to year until cancelled by thirty (30) days' notice in writing from either party.

"Defendant alleges that said lease was continuously in force from the 1st day of April, 1929, to and including the 27th day of July, 1929, and thereafter; that under the terms of said lease, a true copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, the said Earl Harris and Henry Harris agreed to lease said equipment above described from this defendant and pay this defendant as rental therefor the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar annually and at their expense to keep said equipment in good order and repair...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Wright v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1941
    ... ... Kenney, 86 F.2d 651, 653; Matthews v. Mo. P. Ry. Co ... (Mo. App.), 266 S.W. 1020; Eastin v. Phillips Pet ... Co. (Mo. App.), 57 S.W.2d 547, 551. 4. The presumptions ... on which ... and injuries directly resulting therefrom. Cole v. Shell ... Petroleum Co., 149 Kan. 25; Early v. Burt, 134 ... Kan. 445; Neiswender v. County Commrs., 151 Kan ... ...
  • Panke v. Shannon
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 1948
    ...not responsible for the negligence of the tenant in the management and use of the leasehold. Eastin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Mo.App., 57 S.W.2d 547; Moorshead v. United Railways Co., 203 Mo. 121, 100 S.W. 611. However, in the present case, the contract provided: 'The landlord also agrees ......
  • Panke v. Shannon, 27290.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 1948
    ...that the landlord is not responsible for the negligence of the tenant in the management and use of the leasehold. Eastin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Mo.App., 57 S.W.2d 547; Moorshead v. United Railways Co., 203 Mo. 121, 100 S.W. 611. However, in the present case, the contract provided: "The ......
  • Standard Oil Co. of Ind. v. Leaverton
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 1946
    ... ... 608; Martin v ... Maxwell-Brisco Motor Vehicle Co., 158 Mo.App. 188; 138 ... S.W. 65; Eastin v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (Mo ... App.), 57 S.W.2d 547; Henry v. Kennard (Okla.), ... 62 P.2d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT