Minot Hooper Co. v. Crowley Indus. Bag Co.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 2526,2526 |
| Citation | 217 So.2d 653 |
| Parties | MINOT HOOPER COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CROWLEY INDUSTRIAL BAG COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff- Appellant, v. FOGLEMAN TRUCK LINE, INC. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe, by Richard C. Meaux, Lafayette, for defendants-appellants.
J. Donald Aaron, Crowley, for defendant-third-party plaintiff-appellee.
Pugh, Buatt, Landry & Pugh, by J. W. Landry, Jr., Crowley, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SAVOY, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.
Minot Hooper Company, Inc., instituted this suit against Crowley Industrial Bag Company, Inc., seeking $13,599.02, representing the amount remaining due after a partial payment on a shipment of 90,112 yards of osnaburg sheeting material ordinarily used by Crowley Industrial Bag Company, Inc., to manufacture sandbags for the U. S. Army. The amount claimed represents the value of material which could not be salvaged when some of the rolls of sheeting caught on fire in the truck of the common carrier, third party defendant Fogleman Truck Lines, Inc.
Defendant, Crowley Industrial Bag Company, Inc., denied owing the obligation and contended that the sheeting had not been cooled before it was rolled and shipped by plaintiff and was, therefore, not fit for the purposes which plaintiff and defendant intended it to be used, and, therefore, was subject to a redhibitory vice. Crowley Industrial Bag Company, Inc., filed a third party demand against Fogleman Truck Lines, Inc., and its liability insurer alleging alternatively that if defendant is indebted to plaintiff, defendant should have judgment against the carrier and its insurer on the theory that the goods were picked up in good condition at Dover, Georgia and remained in the exclusive possession and control of the third party defendant until it was burned, and that the burning resulted from the failure of the carrier to exercise the degree of care imposed by law.
Third party defendant contends that the osnaburg sheeting material had not been properly cooled and had been rolled into rolls on a cardboard core, and as a result of being improperly cooled and rolled, some of the rolls of sheeting in the truck caught fire, which in turn caused other rolls to catch on fire and become damaged . The carrier and its insurer further contended that the damage to the cargo was due entirely to the negligence and acts of the shipper, Minot Hooper Company, Inc., as well as an inherent condition in the cargo, and that there was nothing which it did or which it failed to do which had anything to do with the fire and the partial loss of the cargo. The affirmative negligence and actions of the employees, agents and representatives of Minot Hooper Company, Inc. were alleged to be:
(a) In excessively heating the material, and immediately rolling it tightly on cardboard cores as soon as it came out of the oven;
(b) In failing to air and cool the material prior to tightly rolling it up, and;
(c) In failing to test the heat of the rolls prior to their being loaded on to the truck,
The trial judge for assigned reasons awarded $13.599.02 to plaintiff, and further held that defendant, Crowley Industrial Bag Company, Inc., was entitled to judgment in the same amount plus $61.10 representing additional labor related to a salvage operations, against Fogleman Truck Lines, Inc., and its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
Third party defendants, Fogleman Truck Lines, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, have appealed from the judgment rendered against them in the sum of $13,660.12. Crowley Industrial Bag Company, Inc., likewise has appealed from the judgment rendered against them.
The trial judge in his well reasoned opinion was impressed by the fact that the carrier had two trucks loaded at approximately the same time with approximately the same load. The other truck delivered the material from Georgia to Crowley, Louisiana, without incident, while this load which sustained the fire damage was delayed approximately four days because of mechanical trouble which developed approximately 80 miles from the point of shipment.
The record establishes that the fire was caused by spontaneous combustion of the material. A description of the material itself and the manner in which it was processed by plaintiff was thoroughly reviewed at the trial.
The finished cotton osnaburg which was to be used by defendant for the manufacturing of the sandbags is constructed by having raw cotton spun into yarn, and this yarn is then sized by adding starches, corn starch and possibly a mildew resistant compound to prevent spoilage, a lubricant and a penetrant. The yard is then mixed with unsized yarn and the fabric is woven, using a filling of unsized yarns. The material is then shipped to the finishing plant, in this case, King Finishing Plant. The first process was for the material to be placed into a copper solution containing aqueous ammonia and a dye. The fabric was dipped into the pan containing the dye and copper solution and was then passed through two squeeze rolls to impregnate this into the fabric. The fabric was then passed over twenty cans with twenty pounds of steam pressure on them and then it enters an oven where hot air was blown onto it. The fabric goes into the even, which is set for 350 degrees and is reduced approximately 25 degrees in three stages. It flows through the oven at about 120 to 135 yards per minute, and is tightly rolled upon cardboard rolls or cores in bales containing approximately 2000 yards of the material. Most of the bales were 60 inches in width, but some were split in half or about 30 inches wide, but they were all approximately 2000 yards in length. The normal speed for the osnaburg sheeting to go through the ovens would be approximately 130 yards a minute while drying. There were no cooling rolls between the oven and the point where the sheeting was rolled onto the cardboard cores. The sheeting comes out of the oven at a very high temperature. In fact, according to plaintiff's expert, the temperature was too hot to lay your hand on the material .
The evidence further discloses that some of the rolls came off the production line and out of the oven on January 17, 1966, and these were loaded on January 18, 1966.
The two expert witnesses presented by defendants, Professors Campbell and Berry of North Carolina, testified that in their opinion the inherent nature of the product which was being hauled, because of the chemicals contained therein, made it subject to spontaneous combustion, and in their opinion the cause of the osnaburg material catching on fire was spontaneous combustion because all of the elements necessary for spontaneous combustion were present. The heating of the fabric and the failure to have it dissipated prior to it being tightly wound causing the heat to be trapped in the bale or roll, would raise the temperature to the ignition point sooner than would otherwise be the case. If the material had been cooled before shipment it might never ignite. The material could have been cooled as it came out of the oven and before it was rolled on the cardboard core, or it could have been cooled before shipment either of which would have greatly decreased the probability of spontaneous combustion. This would be true because if the fabric had been allowed to come to an equilibrium, with respect to temperature, with the surrounding atmosphere before it had been stored in a confined space, the possibility of spontaneous combustion would have been much less. Their opinion is that the fire was caused by the spontaneous combustion of the bales assisted by the added heat of the bales at the time they were shipped.
Even the evidence presented by the plaintiff indicates that the fire was caused as a result of spontaneous combustion brought about as a result of the inherent condition of the material being shipped. Although Mr. Huntsinger, who was qualified by plaintiffs as an expert, testified that he could not assign the cause of the fire, he admitted that since the fabric was rolled on cardboard, charring from the core out would indicate that 'spontaneous combustion' took place.
The oils and sizing, or starches and chemicals which were placed in the raw fabric (referred to in the trade as 'gray goods') are not boiled out at his plant because of the use to which this fabric is to be placed. Although he admittedly was not an expert in chemistry, he did state that it was well recognized in the industry that cotton fabrics are subject to spontaneous combustion if oils, metal oxides and similar additives are added to it. That under circumstances which were presented in this case, being closed up in a tight closed place and having an availability of oxygen and having some catalysts present, he realized a danger of spontaneous combustion was created.
We are also impressed with the testimony of defendants' experts that a test (Mackey test) required by the Army Specifications, indicated that the material is subject to spontaneous combustion. Essentially the test required that some of the material be cooled to room temperature and then placed in the oven heated to 212 degrees for a period of 4 hours.
Thus, we have the testimony of Mr. Berry and Mr. Campbell testifying positively that the cause of the fire was spontaneous combustion brought about by the nature of the goods, i.e., the presence of the iron oxide, waxes and oils and other chemicals in the goods plus the heat being trapped in the bales of material as the material was tightly rolled on the cardboard immediately after coming out of this hot oven and shipped before it was cooled. This testimony is substantiated the testimony of Mr. Scholl and Mr. Huntsinger when Mr. Scholl testified that the material was charred, or scorched or parched...
To continue reading
Request your trial