Hopper v. Charles Cooper & Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 87, 90, 91, 97.,s. 87, 90, 91, 97. |
| Citation | 139 A. 19 |
| Parties | HOPPER v. CHARLES COOPER & CO., Inc., and three other cases. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeals from Supreme Court.
Consolidated actions by Edward William Hopper, by John Carroll, by James Kelly, administrator ad. pros, of James M. Kelly, deceased, and by Charles J. O'Neill, administrator ad. pros, of John P. O'Neill, against Charles Cooper & Co., Inc. Judgment for plaintiffs in each case, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Lindabury, Depue & Faulks and J. Edward Ashmead, all of Newark, for appellant.
Thomas J. Armstrong, George Cutley, and William George, all of Jersey City, for respondents.
The four cases, which are here for review on an appeal from the Supreme Court, arose out of the same accident, and by consent of counsel were tried together, at the Hudson circuit, and in each case there was a verdict for the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs respondents brought four separate actions, two of which were for the recovery of damages for personal injuries sustained by them through the negligence of the defendant appellant, and the other two actions were brought under the Death Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1907, § 7 et seq.), by the administrators plaintiffs respondents against the same defendant appellant, to recover from it pecuniary loss sustained by the next of kin as a result of negligently causing the death of plaintiffs' decedents.
There are 19 grounds of appeal, 2 of which are founded upon the refusal of the trial judge to nonsuit the plaintiffs and in refusing to direct verdicts for defendant. A careful perusal and consideration of the testimony in the case, and of the grounds urged for a nonsuit and for a direction of verdicts for the defendant, and of the charge of the learned trial judge to the jury, make it manifest that his action in refusing to grant either motion embodies in one form or another, with one or two minor exceptions, all the questions presented in the 19 grounds of appeal; therefore it becomes unnecessary to deal separately with each ground of appeal.
The facts of the case are briefly these: The plaintiff Hopper started from Jersey City, in his father's automobile, with four lead jugs given him by a florist, with instructions to go to the Charles Cooper Chemical Company, at Newark, to have two of the jugs filled with hydrofluoric acid and to obtain a rebate on the other two. On his way to the Cooper manufactory he met three friends, and invited them to come with him on his errand, which invitation they accepted. Upon arriving at his destination he took the four jugs into the Cooper plant and ordered 20 pounds of hydrofluoric acid to be put in two of the jugs—10 pounds in each jug—and asked a rebate on the other two jugs. A rebate was refused, the cashier stating that the company could not use them. Upon the request of Hopper the cashier then selected the two best jugs to be filled with acid, and the remaining two jugs Hopper took with him and placed them in the back of the car, and got into the car to wait for the jugs which he left to be filled.
About 20 minutes elapsed between the time when the two jugs were taken to be filled by an employee of the company and brought back filled to the automobile in which Hopper was waiting for them. They were brought to and placed in the automobile by one of the appellant's employees. The distance from the place at which the jugs were filled to Hopper's car was a block and a half. After the jugs had been placed and arranged in the car, Hopper took his seat at the wheel and started the car, and had partially turned the car around to return to Jersey City, when the cork from the tall jug blew out, followed by a portion of the acid, which sprayed over the occupants of the car. It is conceded in appellant's brief that 2 or 2 1/2 minutes had elapsed from the time the jugs were placed in the car until the happening of the accident. As a result of the explosion Hopper, Carroll, Kelly, and O'Neill were injured. The two former recovered and the latter, Kelly and O'Neill, died within an hour afterwards of their injuries.
There was testimony to the effect that when the jugs were placed in the car they were hot, one hotter than the other; that the jugs were corked with plain corks; that there was no paraffin wax around the cork which blew out; that the usual practice was to place paraffin paper around the cork and tie it with twine; that the common and safe practice was, and had been the practice of the appellant company, to let an hour and a half to two hours elapse after filling a jug with hydrofluoric acid before delivering it to the purchaser. There is a unanimity of opinion of the expert witnesses, produced by plaintiff and defendants in the court below, to the effect that hydrofluoric acid is a highly dangerous substance when brought in contact with silicates or dirt containing silicates. When this contact occurs, according to their testimony, it causes the formation of gas which is accompanied by a rising temperature.
The dangerous and destructive character and force of the acid in question, when in contact with silicate or dirt containing silicate, was tragically exemplified by what happened to the occupants of the car, in a more forceful and impressive manner than can be expressed in words. One of the experts testified that the fact that the reaction of the acid became sufficiently violent to blow out the stopper, which had been firmly imbedded in the neck of the jug, according to the testimony of the appellant's employees, "shows that the proper proportions of the materials and condition of the cake was such as to require that length of time whatever it may be, precisely in minutes, which transpired between the filling of the jug and the blowing out for the reaction to reach and proceed into the violent stage." This, according to the testimony, it did in about 20 minutes after the jugs had been delivered to be filled; for according to the testimony it took 10 minutes to fill the jugs and a few more minutes were consumed in taking them to the car. Testimony elicited from the experts tended to show that there was a simple, common, and safe method by which all danger of explosion as a result of hydrofluoric acid coming into contact with foreign matter can he avoided, namely, by leaving the container, after filling it, uncorked for an hour and a half or two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Warranty Corp. v. Caldwell
...397, 1 S.W.2d 122 (1927); Statler v. George A. Ray Manufacturing Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 88 N.E. 1063 (1909) (dictum); Hopper v. Charles Cooper & Co., 104 N.J.L. 93, 139 A. 19 (Ct. of Error & Appeal 1927), and others located in the general vicinity of the chattel's probable use. Restatement, Tor......
-
Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams
...Hallenback v. S. Wander & Sons Chemical Co., 197 A.D. 855, 189 N.Y.S. 334; Texas Drug Co. v. Cadwell, 237 S.W. 968; Hooper v. Cooper & Co., 139 A. 19, 55 A.L.R. 187; Guinea v. Campbell, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 22 C. S. Keep v. National Tube Co., 154 F. 121. In an action for the loss of an eye, du......
-
O'Donnell v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.
...necessary the dangerous propensities of the article involved are, of course, to be considered, Hopper v. Charles Cooper & Co., 104 N.J.L. 93, 139 A. 19, 55 A.L.R. 187 (E. & A.1927); Herz v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 99 N.J.L. 407, 123 A. 878 (E. & In the case at bar the defendant was n......
-
Alston v. J. L. Prescott Co.
...N.J.L. 49, 1 A.2d 331 (E. & A. 1938), or where the commodity is inherently dangerous and known to be such. Hopper v. Charles Cooper & Co., 104 N.J.L. 93, 139 A. 19 (E. & A. 1927). But Butler spoke of dividing 'a hair 'twixt south and south west In the bottle cases the elements normally enga......