Hyland Hall & Co. v. Madison Gas & Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1960 |
| Citation | 105 N.W.2d 305,11 Wis.2d 238 |
| Parties | HYLAND HALL AND COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent, and Ford, Bacon & Davis, Incorporated, a foreign corporation, Rockwell Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, Interpleaded Defendants and Appellants. H & H ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent, and Ford, Bacon & Davis, Incorporated, a foreign corporation, Rockwell Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, Interpleaded Defendants and Appellants. J. S. CUNNINGHAM and Arthur G. Gill, Copartners, d/b/a White Cross Pharmacy, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent, and Ford, Bacon & Davis, Incorporated, a foreign corporation, Rockwell Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, Interpleaded Defendants and Appellants. Stanley M. WEBER and Robert W. Knoelke, as tenants in common, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent, and Ford, Bacon & Davis, Incorporated, a foreign corporation, Rockwell Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, Interpleaded Defendants and Appellants. TRAVELERS FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance corporation, and Emma Wipperfurth, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent, and Ford, Bacon & Davis, Incorporated, a foreign corporation, Rockwell Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, Interpleaded Defendants and Appellants. Robert McDONNELL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent, and Ford, Bacon & Davis, Incorporated, a foreign corporation, Rockwell Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, Interpleaded Defendants and Appellants. Patrick McSHERRY, Frank Short, Vincent Ryan and Frank McDermott, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MADISON |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Ela, Christianson, Ela, Esch, Hart & Clark, Madison, for Ford, Bacon & Davis.
Petersen, Sutherland, Axley & Brynelson, and Frank J. Bucaida, Madison, for Rockwell Mfg. Co.
Rieser, Stafford, Lesselyoung & Rosenbaum, Aberg, Bell, Blake & Metzner, Madison, for Madison Gas & Electric Co.
Frank A. Ross and Frank A. Ross, Jr., Madison, for Hyland Hall & Co.
Each interpleaded defendant claims that the undisputed facts relieve it of any legal liability for the explosions and, therefore, its motion to dismiss the cross complaint summarily should have been granted. For the sake of clarity we will consider each appeal separately.
The facts common to both appeals, however, are as follows: The defendant, Madison Gas and Electric Company, for some fifty years has been distributing gas in the city of Madison. About 1949 it changed over from distributing manufactured to natural gas, which it purchases from a pipe line company. In this changeover it was necessary to design or redesign its system of gas distribution so that the high pressure of the natural gas could be reduced from pipe-line pressure to low distribution pressure. The Madison Gas and Electric Company hired the interpleaded defendant, Ford, Bacon & Davis, Incorporated, as agent under the supervision of the defendant, Madison Gas and Electric Company, to do the designing of the engineering work in connection with the construction of a feeder line and a pressure-reducing station. In the plans Ford, Bacon & Davis specified certain relief values and vents which were ultimately installed as part of the distribution system. The defendant, Madison Gas and Electric Company, also purchased and installed certain gas-reducing pressure regulators manufactured by the interpleaded defendant, Rockwell Manufacturing Company.
Natural gas is carried to the Madison utility by pipe line under pressure of 300 to 400 pounds per square inch (psi) which is normally reduced at the 'city gate' station by Rockwell regulators belonging to the Madison Gas and Electric Company to between 110-140 psi, and it is then brought into the city through underground feeder mains to the East Main street pressure house where it is again reduced by Rockwell regulators to between 5-20 psi, and then introduced into the general distribution system and conducted through such system by way of pumping mains laid in the streets of Madison. The two regulators in the Main Street pressure house were set up in parallel arrangement. On the night of January 4th the regulator in operation in the pressure house developed an unusual and violent vibration, and after some period of time failed in an open position, allowing the gas to pass into the distribution mains without any reduction in pressure. The relief valves were set to relieve gas pressure in the distribution system somewhat in excess of 20 pounds. After thirty or thirty-five minutes the gas going through the regulator was manually shut off. About that time the explosions occurred some distance away on North Bassett street.
There is considerable evidence that the attendant at the pressure house did not know what to do when the vibration started in the regulator, that he called his immediate supervisor who came to the pressure house. The supervisor called the superintendent by telephone, and the attendant was told to shut off the regulator which he attempted to do by adjusting the top of the pressure regulator. Some minutes later the superintendent arrived at the pressure house and turned the gas off by means of a manual valve in the pipe. However, part of a gas main blew out on North Bassett street.
Various causes of the damages, either singly or in combination, are urged: 1) The regulator failed in an open position; 2) The attendant was incompetent and did not shut off the gas to the regulator; 3) The relief valves and vents were inadequate to reduce the pressure in the distributing mains; 4) The pipe in the distributing main was old and defective.
The cross complaint against Rockwell alleges that the regulator was defective as to its design, construction and material used, and Rockwell knew or should have known of the defect; that the damages were caused by the negligence of Rockwell, specifying in detail various alleged technical defects. The Madison Gas and Electric Company asked for indemnification or contribution against Rockwell, depending on the facts proved.
Rockwell contends: 1) It was not negligent because it gave warnings as to the danger of failure of the regulator in case of vibration; 2) That the defendant gas utility, having full knowledge of the danger of vibration, failed for some twenty-five minutes to shut off the gas by turning the manual valve, and this act or omission of the defendant gas company was the sole cause of the damage; 3) That satisfactory operation of the regulator for over eight years with no complete check or maintenance performed, negatives any claim of neglect of the interpleaded defendant manufacturer.
In our opinion the determination of whether the handbook, exhibit no. 22, was an adequate warning, or any warning, to the gas company, or whether it was intended as a maintenance procedure, should be reserved for trial. There are questions of fact involving whether or not the gas company ignored the warning, if exhibit no. 22 can be considered one. There is some dispute over whether the regulator was properly inspected. The alleged facts sustaining the contention that Rockwell's negligence, if any, was not the cause of the plaintiff's damage are questioned. There is considerable technical material and affidavits on these points.
Rockwell is of the opinion and strenuously argues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knudtson v. Swenson
...See rule 344(f) (10), R.C.P.; McGee v. Clearwater Mfg. Co., 214 S.C. 495, 53 S.E.2d 393, 395; and Hyland Hall and Co. v. Madison Gas and Elect. Co., 11 Wis.2d 238, 105 N.W.2d 305, 310. In the instant case the warning plate affixed to the wagon by the manufacturer, upon which Swenson apparen......
-
Cirillo v. City of Milwaukee
...Wis. 408, 411, 71 N.W.2d 363.23 Trczyniewski v. Milwaukee (1961), 15 Wis.2d 236, 112 N.W.2d 725; Hyland Hall & Co. v. Madison Gas & Electric Co., (1960), 11 Wis.2d 238, 245, 105 N.W.2d 305.24 Grosso v. Wittemann, supra, footnote 6, 266 Wis. at page 20, 62 N.W.2d ...
-
Jahns v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co.
...are well known and have been frequently stated and explained by this court. Under the rule of Hyland Hall & Co. v. Madison Gas & Electric Co. (1960), 11 Wis.2d 238, 105 N.W.2d 305, and Dottai v. Altenbach (1963), 19 Wis.2d 373, 120 N.W.2d 41, we first examine the moving papers and documents......
-
Frewe v. Dupons Const. Co.
...affidavits and adverse examinations is not an objective contemplated by summary judgment procedure. Hyland Hall & Co. v. Madison Gas & Electric Co., supra, 11 Wis.2d p. 245, 105 N.W.2d 305; Stafford v. General Supply Co. (1958), 5 Wis.2d 137, 92 N.W.2d The three cases cited by appellant to ......