Garman v. Magic Chef, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1981
• Citation: 117 Cal.App.3d 634,173 Cal.Rptr. 20
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: James W. GARMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMERICAN CLIPPER CORPORATION, a California corporation et al., Defendants andRespondents. * Civ. 60146, 60174.

Page 20

173 Cal.Rptr. 20

117 Cal.App.3d 634

James W. GARMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMERICAN CLIPPER CORPORATION, a California corporation et al., Defendants andRespondents. ^*

Civ. 60146, 60174.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

April 1, 1981.

Daniel K. Kean, Garden Grove, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Lawler & Ellis, Byron J. Lawler and Margot Davis, Ventura, and Owen, Melbye & Rohlff, and Cameron Miller, Redwood City, for defendants and respondents, American Clipper Corp.

BEACH, Associate Justice.

The matters before us are two appeals from summary judgments in favor of defendant-respondent Magic Chef, manufacturer of a cooking stove. ¹

Plaintiffs, appellant and his now deceased wife, purchased a motorhome with a propane gas system, including all appliances thereto. About a week after purchase, appellants took the motorhome into a service agency. There two leaks at joints in the propane gas system were discovered and repaired. One leak was located at the propane gas tank itself and the other at the hot water tank connection. At the time of repairs a T-joint was replaced. A few days later while at a rest stop, appellant's wife lit the stove to make soup. Approximately five minutes later an explosion and fire occurred causing damages and personal injury.

The physical circumstances that resulted in the explosion are not in dispute. A copper tube extended from the propane gas tank upwards to a point where it flared out in two directions. One branch of the tubing extended to the gas stove and the other extended to the gas heater. The branch of tubing which extended to the hot water heater separated at its attachment to the T-joint permitting propane gas to leak out and form a pool of flammable vapor. The flame on the stove, when lit by appellant's wife, provided a source of ignition for the leaking gas. Defendant, Magic Chef, respondent here, manufactured the stove.

Appellants filed the two actions against the manufacturer of the motorhome, the retail dealer that sold it, the two agencies that serviced and repaired it, the manufacturer of the heater and the manufacturer of the stove (respondent). After American Clipper Corporation, the manufacturer and assembler of the motorhome and its propane gas system settled with appellants, the trial court granted the summary judgments in favor of respondent Magic Chef.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL :

Appellants contend that there remained the question of whether or not the respondent's warning and installation instruction accompanying the gas stove manufactured by it were defective. Appellants argue this is a question of fact which could not be resolved by summary judgment. We reject the contentions and we affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION :

Respondent's motion for summary judgment was based on the undisputed fact that the proximate cause of the explosion was a defect in the copper tubing and joints between the propane gas tank and the hot water heater which allowed gas to escape. There was no defect in the cook stove itself. In opposing the motion for summary judgment, appellants for the first time raised the contention that the instructions provided by defendant Magic Chef for the operation of the gas range were inadequate in that they did not warn the stove user to check inside the motorhome for gas leaks before lighting the pilot and making use of the stove. Appellants claim that their contention presented a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a defect in the product, the gas range manufactured and sold by respondent. Appellants are in error.

The issue before the court contained no disputed facts. The leaked gas was ignited by the stove's flame. There was no physical defect in the stove. It was working properly. The physical facts thus being not in dispute, the question remaining before the court was whether as a matter of law the stove manufacturer had a duty to warn that a lighted but properly operating stove might ignite gas leaking from some other place. In other words: did the absence of a warning constitute the legally recognized or "proximate" cause of the explosion, so as to affix liability therefor? The answer is "no." The trial court's ruling on this question was correct.

Causation is a necessary element in strict liability just as it is in negligence liability. Thus the general rules of proximate cause apply. (4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 833, p. 3128.) Proximate cause is a legal relationship. Whether an act or incident is the proximate...