Ekberg v. Greene, C-1386
| Decision Date | 04 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. C-1386,C-1386 |
| Parties | Margaret M. EKBERG, Individually and as mother and natural guardian of Michael Dale Ekberg, a minor, and Raul and Wilma Talamantes, Individually and as parents and natural guardians of Donald Wayne Talamantes, Petitioners, v. Kenneth C. GREENE, Individually and doing business as Greene's Fina Service, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Kenneth N. Kripke, Denver, for petitioners.
Madden & Strate, P. C., William J. Madden, Denver, for respondent.
Petitioners Ekberg and Talamantes (plaintiffs) instituted this negligence action to recover damages for injuries sustained in a flash fire which occurred in the restroom of respondent (defendant) Greene's service station. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiffs and the trial court entered judgment. The court of appeals reversed, holding that, as a matter of law, defendant's negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries. Ekberg v. Greene, Colo.App., 571 P.2d 727 (1977).
We granted certiorari and now reverse. We hold that proximate cause is an issue of fact under the record of this case, and therefore was properly a jury question.
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following facts were established at trial. See Kiefer Concrete, Inc. v. Hoffman, Colo., 562 P.2d 745 (1977). Defendant operated a gas station and a used car business on the premises in question. His land was situated across the street from a shopping center and movie theater, and patrons of those businesses, including the plaintiffs, regularly crossed the street and used the restroom. Greene knew of the public's use of the restroom.
The room was heated by a natural gas heater which defendant had personally installed. Soft copper tubing connected the outside gas line to the inside heater. The tubing was unsupported and extended several inches from the wall. One of defendant's expert witnesses described the installation as "precarious." There was no automatic shutoff valve and no ventilation, except for two windows in the restroom.
The restroom had been vandalized on several occasions in the past. Six months before the accident in question occurred, someone had broken the sink and the toilet. Notwithstanding the past vandalism of which the defendant was fully aware, he installed no padlocks or other security devices to prevent entry nor did he post any warning signs. The door was equipped with a standard key lock, which defendant admits could have been opened with an ordinary credit card. There was also testimony that the door was never locked and was not locked on the night in question and that the sole light fixture in the bathroom did not work.
On November 16, 1974, defendant closed his station at 5:00 p. m. and left. Around 8:00 p. m., an employee of a restaurant across the street observed four young men prowling around the station and exiting from the restroom. At approximately 8:30 p. m., plaintiff Ekberg (then age fifteen), and plaintiff Talamantes (then age thirteen), and another friend departed from a nearby restaurant and walked to the service station in order to use the restroom. Ekberg partially opened the door to the restroom and struck a match in order to light a cigarette. The match ignited the natural gas which had escaped from the heater installation; the room erupted in a flash fire. The blast knocked the boys backward and severely burned them. Subsequent investigations revealed that the gas leak had been caused by severed tubing, which apparently had been broken at some previous time.
The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs and the trial court entered judgment. On appeal, the court of appeals did not disturb the jury's finding that Greene was negligent in installing the heater and/or in failing to properly secure the restroom. The court of appeals reversed, however, on the sole ground that Greene's negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries. It is this issue which is before us on certiorari.
At the outset, we note the general tort rule that an intentionally tortious or criminal act of a third party is not a superseding cause immunizing the defendant from liability, if it is reasonably foreseeable. See Restatement, Second, Torts, §§ 448, 449; Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 489 P.2d 308 (1971). We are convinced that under these facts, there is sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have concluded that the vandalism of the restroom and plaintiffs' injuries were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lyons v. Nasby
...causes an injury when his or her wrongful conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's injury. Ekberg v. Greene, 196 Colo. 494, 588 P.2d 375 (1978). Whether proximate cause exists is a question for the jury and only in the clearest of cases, where reasonable minds can d......
-
Ireland v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Dept.
...a defendant from responsibility if the third-party's conduct is reasonably and generally foreseeable. See Ekberg v. Greene, 196 Colo. 494, 496-97, 588 P.2d 375, 376-77(1978). There is no question that Harris and/or Klebold injured Plaintiff. The issue is whether Harris' and Klebold's intent......
-
Murphy v. Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co.
...electrocuted while attempting to remove light bulb from street lamp located outside his bedroom window); Ekberg v. Greene, 196 Colo. 494, 495-97, 588 P.2d 375, 375-76 (1978) (teenage vandals burned by flash fire that occurred when, after the close of business, they opened service station re......
-
Largo Corp. v. Crespin, 84SC365
...between the vendor's conduct and the plaintiff's injuries. We reject the rule as outdated and ill-reasoned. In Ekberg v. Greene, 196 Colo. 494, 588 P.2d 375 (1978), we Where the circumstances make it likely that defendant's negligence will result in injuries to others and where this neglige......