Parker v. Gulf Refining Co.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 6847,6848.,6847 |
| Citation | 80 F.2d 795 |
| Parties | PARKER v. GULF REFINING CO. (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
A. M. Van Duzer, of Cleveland, Ohio (McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart and Lurie, Sachs & Miller, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
H. M. Roberts, of Cleveland, Ohio (Howell, Roberts & Duncan, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
The appellants, husband and wife, severally sued the manufacturer of Gulfwax, a paraffin product, for injuries growing out of burns received by the wife in its use. They complain of a verdict directed against them below, where the suits were consolidated for trial. The Gulfwax having been purchased from a retail dealer, and there being no question of negligent manufacture, the controlling question is whether it is an inherently dangerous product for the use contemplated so as to require upon its container some warning respecting its hazards.
The accident out of which the causes of action arose occurred on July 6, 1932. Mrs. Parker, while engaged in preserving jam at her home in Lakewood, Ohio, required paraffin to seal its containers. She had frequently used paraffin for such purpose, but not the defendant's product. On this occasion she went to one of the retail stores of the Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company and was sold a package of Gulfwax, containing four quarter pound rectangular cakes. The carton containing them had upon it a printed instruction reading: "Pour a quarter inch or more of Gulfwax (first melting it)." Returning to her home Mrs. Parker put one of the rectangular cakes into a small aluminum pan, previously used for the same purpose, and placed the pan over an open burner at the back of her gas stove. She then proceeded to her front porch, where she stayed "two or three minutes, long enough for the wax to melt." When she approached the kitchen on her return, she saw a reflection upon its back wall. Upon reaching the room she saw a white shaft extending from the pan half way to the ceiling. Hurrying to the stove to turn off the gas, there transpired what she describes as follows: "When I had my hand touching the valve or handle there was just like a puff that took place, and I had the impression that it — that the white light leaped out at me and I was immediately in flames, and that is all."
A chemical expert for the plaintiffs described the manufacture of paraffin and explained its properties. It is a residue remaining in crude oil after naptha, gasoline, and then kerosene are drawn off by a process of distillation. The paraffin itself contains no gasoline or kerosene, or anything of that kind, outside of perhaps a slight trace of moisture. It is a pure crystallization of paraffin wax. Being a petroleum hydro-carbon, it will burn just like lard will burn, or bacon fat. It melts at approximately 126.6 degrees Fahrenheit. If its temperature is increased to 450 degrees, vapors will form, which may take fire either from applied heat or by coming into direct contact with flame. The flame point is 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Any inflammable material which reaches a certain temperature, either by direct contact with flame or by high temperature and oxidation, will, at the point of bursting into flame, produce a slight puffing. The expert also described a phenomenon referred to as "bumping." This occurs when liquids are superheated in such manner that the portion in closest contact with the fire forms a gas pocket. It is the tendency of the gas to expand and escape, with the result that some of the liquid is thrown from the container. It was the expert's opinion that Mrs. Parker was injured as the result of "bumping." Bumping may, however, occur in the heating of petroleum oil, lard, bacon fat, or any of the cooking oils commonly used in the kitchen, such as Mazola or Wesson Oil, and occurs even with water.
About two months after the accident, during which period the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woelfle v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
... ... St. Louis Transit Co., 178 Mo. 125; Parker v. Gulf ... Refining Co., 80 F.2d 795, 796. (4) The policy in suit ... was an Illinois contract ... ...
-
Morris v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
... ... Torpedo Co., 232 P. 419; Eastern Torpedo Co. v ... Shelts, 247 P. 974; Parker v. Gulf Refining ... Co., 80 F.2d 795. (4) The testimony of appellant's ... expert witness Cuno ... ...
-
Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Johnston's Fuel Liners, Inc., 8059
...evidence is equally consistent with two opposing hypotheses it is without probative force and tends to support neither. Parker v. Gulf Refining Co., 6 Cir., 80 F.2d 795; E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Baridon, 8 Cir., 73 F.2d 26. As the proof rests upon circumstances, the circumstances m......
-
Troutman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...but to permit them to conjecture or guess, and evidence which presents no more than such choice is not substantial. Parker v. Gulf Refining Co., 6 Cir., 80 F.2d 795, 796; O'Mara v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 6 Cir., 95 F.2d 762, 763; Gulf Refining Co. v. Mark C. Walker & Son Co. (Charles Weaver &......