Patterson v. Wenatchee Canning Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1909
• Citation: 53 Wash. 155,101 P. 721
• Parties: PATTERSON v. WENATCHEE CANNING CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

101 P. 721

53 Wash. 155

PATTERSON v. WENATCHEE CANNING CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 13, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; R. S. Steiner, Judge.

Action by Fred N. Patterson against the Wenatchee Canning Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Corbin Ludington & Kemp and Williams & Grimshaw, for appellant.

Reeves & Reeves, for respondent.

MORRIS J.

In this action the plaintiff and respondent sought to recover from the defendant and appellant damages for alleged negligence in the storage of meat. The case was tried before a jury, and verdict was returned for respondent. Many errors are assigned and discussed in the briefs, but we shall review only those involved in the conclusion reached.

The relation of the parties grew out of the following agreement 'Wenatchee, Wash., Oct. 30, 1906. Agreement entered into between the Wenatchee Canning Co. and Fred N. Patterson, said Canning Co. renting to Mr. Patterson cold storage room No. 3 to be used for storing beef. Consideration $100 per month or in proportion to that amount according to space used. Rental to commence Monday, Nov. 5, 1906. Wenatchee Canning Co., per L. G. Olds.'

The trial judge, being unable to satisfy his mind what the true relation of the parties was under this so-called agreement whether it was that of landlord and tenant or warehouseman and depositor, or both, left the question to the jury, giving them what he deemed appropriate instructions to cover each situation. Instruction No. 16 was as follows: 'Was the defendant company a warehouseman of the beef in controversy and the plaintiff Patterson a depositor of said beef for safe-keeping; or, on the other hand, did the relation of landlord and tenant merely exist between the parties? That is, was it merely contemplated by the parties when they contracted with each other that the defendant company should merely lease cold storage room No. 3 to the plaintiff Patterson, the same to be occupied and used by him for the storage of beef in his own way, and under his own control and at his own risk, or is it the fact that both of the foregoing relations existed between the parties; that is, did the defendant company lease cold storage room No. 3 to the plaintiff Patterson for the storage of beef, and, in addition thereto, receive the beef into its custody and undertake the management and control of the same with a view to its preservation or safe-keeping? Or, lastly, did the parties enter into a special contract, either orally or in writing, or both, whereby the duties and liabilities of each toward the other was specifically set forth and defined?' In instruction No. 22 the jury were told that both relations might exist at the same time. The relation might be landlord and tenant as to room No. 3, and the company still be a warehouseman as to the beef. If the learned trial court familiar with the various legal situations created and growing out of contractual relations could not satisfactorily determine what was the true legal situation existing between the parties to this action, it is difficult to see how 12 ordinary jurors could. It was not proper for the court to submit these questions to the jury even upon instructions correctly defining the respective duties of the parties in these varied and different relations. The court should have determined as a matter of law what this relationship was, and then have defined it to the jury with the correct principles of law appertaining to it, leaving to the jury only the questions of fact to be determined from the conflicting evidence. Instructions should be positive and direct as to the law under which the jury are to return their verdict. The record discloses what the verdict was, but it does not, nor could it, disclose whether the damages assessed against the respondent were because of what the jury conceived to be its liability as a landlord, or as a warehouseman, or as a landlord, as to room No. 3, and a warehouseman as to the beef, or whether it was made up of what was determined to be in...