Mountain Motor Fuel Co. v. Rivers
| Citation | 170 P. 1164,65 Colo. 561 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | 8808. |
| Parties | MOUNTAIN MOTOR FUEL CO. et al. v. RIVERS. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 1, 1918.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; A. Watson McHendrie, Judge.
Action by William Rivers against the Mountain Motor Fuel Company and H. H. Quine. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error. Reversed.
Doud & Fowler and Ernest B. Fowler, all of Denver for plaintiff in error Quine.
George P. Steele, of Denver, for plaintiff in error Mountain Motor Fuel Co.
Charles F. Morris and William R. Eaton, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error recovered a judgment against the plaintiffs in error in an action for damages from the burning of an automobile in a garage owned by defendant Quine, but occupied by a lessee. The complaint charged that the defendants had been negligent in the following particulars That the Fuel Company drove a gasoline tank motor truck into said garage and negligently backed it against the wall, so that the gasoline in the tank was spilled upon the floor whence it 'flowed down through the floor of the said garage in and upon the furnace, or heating apparatus, of said garage, thereby causing the fire which resulted in destroying plaintiff's automobile'; that defendant Quine was negligent in having a furnace in said garage in violation of a municipal ordinance, which prohibits the keeping of any heating apparatus in a garage; and in having a coal hole in said floor above the furnace.
It appears from the record that the tank truck was backed against the north wall of the garage so forcibly that it rebounded toward the middle of the room 10 or 12 feet; that it was so damaged that the gasoline, of which there were 30 gallons in the tank, ran out at the rear on the floor; that the floor was of concrete, 3 to 5 inches thick and sloping toward the middle of the garage; that some 3 feet from the north wall, and 4 to 6 feet easterly from the tank, there was a coal hole, in the floor, 2 feet square, with a cover flush with the floor; that directly beneath this opening there was a coal bin about 10 by 12 feet, boarded up to the ceiling; that from 5 to 6 feet west of the bin was the furnace, in which there was a fire at the time of the accident; that an explosion and a fire followed almost immediately upon the breaking of the tank; and that the motor on the truck was running when the explosion occurred.
One witness testified that the gasoline poured from the back of the truck and spread both ways; that he ran to the truck with a 5-gallon funnel and attempted to catch the gasoline and divert the flow to the center of the building; that the funnel was filled in a very short time, a heavy stream flowing out, and then the explosion occurred, 'it flamed all at once.' Another witness testified that he was in the basement, heard the tank wagon drive in and strike something, and, as he got upstairs, it all took fire. He said:
'I saw a small amount of fire back of the truck, then I caught fire.'
And further:
The driver of the truck was killed.
This is substantially all the testimony concerning the beginning of the fire.
At the close of plaintiff's case, the defendants moved for a nonsuit on the ground, among other things, that there was no evidence which showed or tended to show that any gasoline came in contact with the heating apparatus in the basement. The overruling of this motion is assigned as error. One witness was asked if he knew of anything in the building that could have caused the gasoline to ignite except the stove. The answer was:
'Nothing, only the running motor.'
He further said:
'I have known motors to ignite gasoline,' and, further, that to fill a tank with gasoline with the motor going was dangerous.
The plaintiffs in error invoked the rule that a verdict based upon conjecture and possibilities merely cannot be upheld. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Church, 49 Colo. 582, 114 P. 299. Or, as is stated in Elkton Con. M. & M. Co. v. Sullivan, 41 Colo. 244, 92 P. 681:
'Mere conjecture cannot be resorted to, to supply the place of either direct or inferential proof.'
This case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ayala, 87SA187
...may not rest on presumption or inference on inference. Dodo v. Stocker, 74 Colo. 95, 219 Pac. 222 [1923]; Mountain Motor Fuel Co. v. Rivers, 65 Colo. 561, 170 Pac. 1164 [1918]; Elliott v. People, 115 Colo. 382, 174 P. (2d) 500 [1946]; and this rule is doubly applicable in criminal cases. Id......
-
Pena v. People, 19665
...and presumption may not rest on presumption or inference on inference. Dodo v. Stocker, 74 Colo. 95, 219 P. 222; Mountain Motor Fuel Co. v. Rivers, 65 Colo. 561, 170 P. 1164; Elliott v. People, 115 Colo. 382, 174 P.2d 500; and this rule is doubly applicable in criminal cases.' (Emphasis I a......
-
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Cudd
...486, 197 P.2d 155; Home Public Market v. Newrock, 111 Colo. 428, 142 P.2d 272; See also cases in footnote 2. 5 Mountain Motor Fuel Co. v. Rivers, 65 Colo. 561, 170 P. 1164; Dodo v. Stocker, 74 Colo. 95, 219 P. 6 Restatement, Law of Torts, Paragraph 519; 35 C.J.S., Explosives, § 8. 7 Restate......
-
Tate v. People
...and presumption may not rest on presumption or inference on inference. Dodo v. Stocker, 74 Colo. 95, 219 P. 222; Mountain Motor Fuel Co. v. Rivers, 65 Colo. 561, 170 P. 1164; Elliott v. People, 115 Colo. 382, 174 P.2d 500; and this rule is doubly applicable in criminal Considering the conte......