Morris v. Texas Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 5385.,5385. |
| Citation | 115 A. 643 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. TEXAS CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; John Doran, Judge.
Action by Thomas M. Morris against the Texas Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled and case remitted, with directions.
Quinn & McKiernan, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Frederick W. O'Connell and Swan, Keeney & Smith, all of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence, brought to recover damages resulting to the plaintiff by reason of the destruction of his automobile by fire when plaintiff was being served at a gasoline station owned and operated by the defendant. The trial in the superior court resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $385. The case is before this court on defendant's exception to the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant, and also on exception to refusal to instruct the jury as requested.
The first count of the declaration alleges that the defendant, while delivering gasoline through a hose into the tank of the plaintiffs automobile, negligently permitted the nozzle of said hose to slip from out of the opening in said tank and fall to the ground, thereby causing a spark, which ignited the escaping gasoline, with the result that said automobile was consumed by fire.
There was testimony that said metal nozzle slipped from out of the opening in said tank and fell, striking upon the concrete surface of the ground, and that at the same instant a fire blazed up from the gasoline which escaped under the automobile. Of course, no one could testify that he saw a spark when the nozzle came in contact with the concrete; but we think the jury were justified in concluding from the evidence that the fire originated from a spark caused by the nozzle coming in contact with the concrete, and that the defendant was negligent in permitting the nozzle to slip from the opening in the tank and strike upon the concrete surface. The defendant's exception to the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant is without merit.
The second and third exceptions are to the refusal to instruct the jury as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams
...So. 350; Miss. Central R. R. Co. v. Lott, 80 So. 277; Cooley on Torts (3 Ed.), pages 1486, 1488, 1489; 6 Blashfield, page 17; Morris v. Texas Co., 115 A. 643. As any assumption of risk on the part of Willie Williams, we refer the court to the case of Standard Oil Company v. Evans, 122 So. 7......
-
Lovato v. Plateau, Inc.
...475, 122 So. 735 (1929); Bacon v. A.B.A. Independent Oil & Gasoline Co., 111 Neb. 830, 198 N.W. 143, 33 A.L.R. 769 (1924); Morris v. Texas Co., 115 A. 643 (R.I.1922); Fredericks v. Atlantic Refining Co., 282 Pa. 8, 127 A. 615, 38 A.L.R. 666 (1925); Robert R. Walker, Inc. v. Burgdorf, 150 Te......
- Bova v. Buonanno