McQuillen v. Dobbs
| Decision Date | 25 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19813,19813 |
| Citation | 262 S.C. 386,204 S.E.2d 732 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Furman McQUILLEN et al., Respondents, v. Solon M. DOBBS and Leroy Gadson, Appellants. |
Carl C. Hendricks, Jr., Beaufort, for appellant.
J. Thomas Mikell, Beaufort, for respondent.
Plaintiffs Furman and Doris A. McQuillen, husband and wife, with whom plaintiff David Parsons resided, rented a mobile home from the defendant Solon M. Dobbs in August 1972. The mobile home was destroyed by fire on October 12, 1972. The personal possessions of the plaintiffs were destroyed in the fire and each subsequently brought an action against the defendant Dobbs, the owner of the home, and defendant Leroy Gadson, a repairman and agent of Dobbs, to recover their respective losses. The action was based upon allegations that the fire resulted from the negligence of defendants in failing (1) to properly maintain, repair, and light a fuel oil furnace used to heat the home and (2) to provide fire extinguishing equipment. The cases were tried together and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs in the total amount of $2500.00, from which the defendants have appealed.
It is not disputed in this appeal that Dobbs, the owner, owed a duty to properly maintain, repair, and light the fuel oil furnace used in the home rented from him by the plaintiffs; and the sole question for decision is whether the trial judge erred in refusing the timely motions of defendants for a directed verdict upon the ground that there was no evidence to show that the fire and resulting damage was the proximate result of any negligent act on the part of the defendants.
Under settled principles, we must consider the facts, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to plaintiffs.
Defendant Dobbs owned and operated a grocery store and an adjoining rental trailer or mobile home park. One of these homes was rented and occupied by plaintiffs. The home was heated by a Coleman fuel oil furnace, supplied with fuel oil, by gravity, through a pipeline from an elevated outside tank. Temperature was thermostatically controlled.
Pursuant to his obligation, Dobbs undertook in the early part of October 1972, with the aid of his employee Gadson to inspect and service the furnace in the home occupied by plaintiffs. The exact date of the initial inspection of the furnace is not shown but, apparently, it took place two or three days before the furnace was actually put in operation. The inspection revealed that there was a leak in the pipeline through which fuel oil was fed to the furnace. The leak was at a coupling in the line, from which fuel oil would occasionally drop to the ground. It was under the house, five or six feet from the fire area of the furnace, and there is no testimony that any fuel from the leak accumulated on, or came in contact with, any part of the building. While plaintiffs did not know whether this leak was ever repaired, defendants testified that it was stopped before they subsequently started the furnace. One witness, however, testified as to a conversation he had with defendant Dobbs after the fire, from which an inference might reasonably be drawn that the leak had not been repaired.
The only testimony as to the manner in which defendants actually inspected and serviced the furnace came from them. They testified that they checked, in some degree, various switches and controls; cleaned the inside of the fire area, the blower and the lower part of the stovepipe with a vacuum cleaner; and after the furnace was lighted, briefly observed its operation. Their testimony was that, other than the leak in the pipeline, nothing was found wrong with the furnace and it was functioning properly when they left it in operation on October 11, 1972.
However, plaintiff introduced testimony as to the procedures and steps recommended by the manufacturer for the proper inspection and maintenance of the furance; and under this testimony, there was a reasonable inference that defendants failed to properly service the furnace, in that they failed to properly inspect for holes or deterioration in the stovepipe, to properly check the oil control devices, and to use the correct procedure in cleaning the various parts.
The furnace was lighted by defendants on the evening of October 11th and the mobile home burned the next day, October 12th, about midday. The plaintiffs Furman McQuillen and David Parsons were members of the Marine Corp and left for duty early on the morning of October 12th. McQuillen left first, between four and four thirty a.m. Before leaving, he noticed that the furnace was a 'little warm,' but observed nothing to indicate that anything was wrong with its operation. However, when asked if he smelled fuel oil, did state that he detected the odor of 'something funny.' Plaintiff Parsons went to work later, about 7 a.m. Before he left for work he 'felt a little warm' and 'turned the thermostat down.' He noticed nothing unusual about the operation of the furnace.
The plaintiff, Doris McQuillen, slept until about 11 a.m. on the morning of the fire. When she awoke, she immediately saw smoke in the home. It appeared to her that the smoke was coming from the kitchen area and she went to investigate. When she found that nothing was wrong with the kitchen stove, she immediately went to the store of defendant Dobbs, about 150 feet away, to get his help. She and Dobbs returned to the trailer immediately. When they returned, Dobbs went to the furnace and told her to call the fire department. The firemen did not arrive in time and the mobile home was completely destroyed by fire.
Defendant Dobbs testified that he arrived at the home about 11:30 a.m. When he arrived, he opened the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooke v. Allstate Management Corp.
...Finally, plaintiff attempts to expand the rule that a landlord's repairs must be performed with due care. See, e.g., McQuillen v. Dobbs, 262 S.C. 386, 204 S.E.2d 732 (1974). This rule is nothing more than a specific application of the general negligence standard discussed in this order, and......
-
Watson v. Ford Motor Co.
...evidence is just as good as direct evidence if it is equally as convincing to the trier of the facts”); McQuillen v. Dobbs, 262 S.C. 386, 391-92, 204 S.E.2d 732 (1974) (“negligence may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well as direct Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability § 3......
-
Crowley v. Spivey
...Childers v. Gas Lines, Inc., 248 S.C. 316, 325, 149 S.E.2d 761, 765 (1966) (citations omitted). See also McQuillen v. Dobbs, 262 S.C. 386, 393, 204 S.E.2d 732, 735-36 (1974); Brown v. National Oil Co., 233 S.C. 345, 352-53, 105 S.E.2d 81, 84-85 (1958); Hicklin v. Jeff Hunt Machinery Co., 22......
-
Gastineau v. Murphy
...Inevitably, the rule of civil circumstantial evidence is compared to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and in McQuillen v. Dobbs, 262 S.C. 386, 204 S.E.2d 732 (1974), an exercise in academia is The principles governing the determination of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to esta......