Kleinman v. The Banner Laundry Co.
| Decision Date | 23 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 22,006 |
| Citation | 186 N.W. 123,150 Minn. 515 |
| Parties | A.D. KLEINMAN v. THE BANNER LAUNDRY COMPANY AND THE FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $60,000 damages. The case was tried before Olin B. Lewis, J., who when plaintiff rested denied separate motions to dismiss the action as to each defendant, and at the close of the testimony denied the motion of defendant casualty company for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendants. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed as to the casualty company; reversed as to the laundry company.
Explosion of steam boiler -- res ipsa loquitur.
1. The defendant laundry company owned and operated a steam boiler on the premises of the plaintiff of which premises it was the lessee. It had exclusive control of the operation and management of the boiler. The boiler exploded and damaged the plaintiff's property. In an action by the plaintiff to recover damages of the laundry company, it is held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies.
Specific allegations of negligence do not affect application of doctrine.
2. The complaint alleges the ultimate fact of negligence in the laundry company in the care, management and operation of the boiler and in its defective condition. It further alleged specific acts of negligence. It is held that the allegation of specific acts of negligence did not prevent the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
Absence of fusible plug -- refusal to submit question to jury not error.
3. The boiler did not have a fusible plug in the crown sheet. The water was some 16 inches above the cast iron plug that was used. Conceding that the statute requires a fusible plug, the failure to provide it had no causal connection with the explosion. The refusal of the court to submit the absence of such plug as a ground of negligence was correct.
Res ipsa loquitur not applicable to insuring casualty company.
4. The defendant casualty company did not have charge of the operation of the boiler. It inspected the boiler, and insured the owner. It fixed the resisting power at 110 pounds. When the boiler exploded it was carrying a greater load. It is held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply to the casualty company and that the verdict in its favor is sustained.
C. J Cahaley and Walter C. Brandt, for appellant.
O. E Holman and Briggs, Weyl & Briggs, for respondents.
Action by the plaintiff to recover damages to his property caused by the explosion of a boiler. There was a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff was the owner of improved real property in St. Paul. The defendant laundry company was the lessee. It conducted a steam laundry therein and owned and used in connection therewith a large tubular steam boiler. The defendant casualty company was the insurer of the laundry company against damage caused by the explosion of the boiler.
1. On July 22, 1919, a few minutes after the plant closed at the end of the day's work, the boiler exploded and damaged the plaintiff's building. The principal question is whether the doctrine phrased in the maxim res ipsa loquitur applied and whether the jury could consider it in determining the liability of either one or both of the defendants. The trial court held that it did not apply and did not present it to the jury. The charge negatived its application.
In the case of Banner Laundry Co. v. Great Eastern Casualty Co. 148 Minn. 29, 180 N.W. 997, involving the same explosion, it was correctly suggested that by the weight of authority the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was without application to an explosion of a steam boiler, but a decision was unnecessary to a determination of the case, the evidence being deemed to show that there was no negligence of the plaintiff suing the insurance company, and the question was left open. It was held that the explosion was due to the sticking of the safety valve and that the sticking was from some unknown cause or was so unusual that negligence could not be predicated upon it. In this case it does not conclusively appear that the explosion was from a cause for which the defendant was not liable in negligence. The evidence is not the same. For example, there is evidence in this case that a patch or half sheet put on after the boiler had been used for some years very materially weakened its strength. The evidence is not of such character that the res ipsa doctrine, if applicable, can be ignored upon the ground that the proof shows conclusively that the explosion came from a non-negligible cause.
The authorities relative to the application of res ipsa loquitur to boiler explosions are collected in 20 R.C.L. 192; 113 Am. St. 1015; Ann. Cas. 1912A, 976; 15 L.R.A. 38; L.R.A. 1917E, 186. We have held that doctrine applicable where cars ran down a grade and collided with a tender, Olson v. Great North. Ry. Co. 68 Minn. 155, 71 N.W. 5; where an awning fell, Waller v. Ross, 100 Minn. 7, 110 N.W. 252, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 721, 117 Am. St. 661, 10 Ann. Cas. 715; where the air hose on a moving train burst, Rose v. Minneapolis, St. P. & Sault Ste. M. Ry. Co. 121 Minn. 363, 141 N.W. 487, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 92; where the drawbar of a car pulled out, Wiles v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 125 Minn. 348, 147 N.W. 427; where a leak of gas from underground mains did damage, Gould v. Winona Gas Co. 100 Minn. 258, 111 N.W. 254, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.) 889; where burns were caused by the taking of an X-ray, Jones v. Tri-State Tel. & Tel. Co. 118 Minn. 217, 136 N.W. 741, 40 L.R.A.(N.S.) 485; Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N.W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256; and where there was a breaking of a dam, Barnard v. City of Fergus Falls, 115 Minn. 506, 132 N.W. 998; City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus Falls, 113 Minn. 33, 128 N.W. 817, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 59, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 108.
The defendant laundry company owned the boiler and had exclusive charge of its management and operation. Boilers sometimes explode. Comparing the number of explosions with the extent of the use of boilers, explosions are not frequent. If they are kept in proper condition and repair, and if they are operated properly, explosions are unusual. Whether the res ipsa doctrine, which permits an inference of negligence from the fact of an explosion, should apply is largely a question of how justice in such cases is most practically and fairly administered. There is nothing legally illogical in permitting the inference to be drawn. Usually the party injured is without information upon which he may with certainty allege the exact cause, and is without direct proof. Perhaps the exact cause is incapable of ascertainment. The actual proof, if any, is with the party having the management of the instrumentality. These are practical considerations. We think the jury should have been permitted to draw an inference of negligence of the laundry company from the occurrence of the explosion. Though the holding may put us with the minority, we are content with it.
It is not necessary to discuss particularly the effect as proof of the application of the res ipsa maxim. Our holdings are not that it puts the ultimate risk of nonpersuasion upon the defendant. While an occasional expression may be found indicating such view, our holdings are that the application of the rule does not shift the ultimate burden of negativing negligence before the jury upon the defendant, but, in the ordinary case, and without saying that a particular case may not compel the direction of a verdict one way or the other permits the jury to draw an inference of negligence from the result. Keithley v. Hettinger, 133 Minn. 36, 157 N.W. 897, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 376; Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N.W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256. In both of these cases reference is made to Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U.S. 233, 240, 33 S.Ct. 416, 57 L.Ed. 815, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 905, where Justice Pitney says that the meaning of res ipsa loquitur is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial