McCabe v. Boston Consol. Gas Co.
Decision Date | 13 September 1943 |
Citation | 314 Mass. 493,50 N.E.2d 640 |
Parties | NORA J. MCCABE v. BOSTON CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
November 5, 1941.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., DONAHUE LUMMUS, QUA, DOLAN, COX, & RONAN, JJ.
Negligence, Stove Dangerous article, Vendor, Res ipsa loquitur.
A gas stove was not an inherently dangerous article, and a finding of negligence of one, not the manufacturer, who sold and installed the stove and later at the purchaser's request examined it toward one injured by a subsequent explosion of it was not warranted in the absence of any evidence of the cause of the explosion, even if the injured person had a contractual relation with the seller; the doctrine res ipsa loquitur was not applicable.
CONTRACT OR TORT. Writ in the District Court of East Norfolk dated April 29 1939.
There was a finding for the defendant by Nagle, J. A report was ordered dismissed by the Appellate Division for the Southern District, and the plaintiff appealed.
In this court, the case was argued at the bar in November, 1941, before Field, C.J., Donahue, Qua, Dolan, & Ronan, JJ., and afterwards was submitted on briefs to all the Justices.
J. W. Blakeney, Jr., for the plaintiff. R. W. Cornell, for the defendant.
In this action of contract or tort the plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injury and property damage sustained because of the explosion of a gas stove in the kitchen of her house at Quincy. On December 30, 1937, the plaintiff with her daughter Sadie went to the office of the defendant in Quincy and bought on conditional sale a gas stove from the defendant for $145. An old stove was taken at $20 in part payment, and a down payment of $25 was made. Sadie signed the memorandum of sale and the plaintiff did not sign. The defendant installed and regulated the stove in the plaintiff's kitchen about January 6, 1938. In addition to the usual gas burners and an oven, the stove contained a heating unit, regulated by a thermostat on the wall, for the purpose of heating the kitchen.
For about three weeks the stove appeared to operate properly. Then one day two loud noises were heard in the stove, and enamel chipped off and fell to the floor. The salesman who sold the stove was notified, and said that he would send a man to examine the stove and that if anything was wrong it would be corrected. He was told that the plaintiff "was scared of it." The next day men from the defendant came and apparently examined the stove, but did not repair it. The plaintiff continued to use the stove, including the heating unit. On February 3, 1938, the stove exploded, injuring the plaintiff and damaging her property.
After the explosion an employee of the defendant came, tightened a nut under the stove and put some soap on the joint. The heating unit was never used again, but the rest of the stove continued in use. The stove was not wholly paid for until May 28, 1938. The plaintiff produced as a witness a metallurgist who was familiar with the properties of brass, of which many of the fittings of the stove were made. He testified that The witness
"was unable to tell if the nut had been tightened excessively from observation because the joint was plastered with soap." He testified that when a piece of brass is strained it does not have any outward signs of strain.
After the plaintiff had introduced evidence of the foregoing, she rested, and the defendant also rested. The plaintiff presented six requests for rulings that were denied. We need not consider them, for the judge ruled...
To continue reading
Request your trial