Patton v. Dail, 458
Citation | 114 S.E.2d 87,252 N.C. 425 |
Decision Date | 27 April 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 458,458 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | A. F. PATTON and Vann Doris Patton v. Henry DAIL. |
Simms & Simms and Smith, Leach, anderson & Dorsett, Raleigh, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Teague, Johnson & Patterson, Raleigh, for defendant, appellee.
A. F. Patton is an electrical contractor. On 20 December 1958 he and his wife were the owners of a four and one-half room house with bathroom, located about five miles from the city of Raleigh, which they rented. Plaintiffs lived in the city. About 8:15 a. m. o'clock on this day defendant, who is a plumber, by contract with A. F. Patton met him at this house and replaced a spigot in the kitchen. After defendant left, A. F. Patton turned on the water and discovered a leak under the house. A. F. Patton went under the house to find the leak, and found a bursted joint in the pipe under the bathroom. The bathroom was about 14 to 16 inches above the ground. The house had no basement. He turned the water off, and disconnected the electric hot water heater. He returned to the city about 9:15 a. m. o'clock and instructed defendant to go back and repair the leak.
About 10:00 a. m. o'clock on this day Bennett Rowland, who had rented this house from plaintiffs, began moving his furniture in. He finished moving about 2:30 p. m. o'clock, locked up the house, and left, because he had no oil to heat it, and would not have any until two days later. Before leaving he went into all the rooms to see if there was any evidence of fire or smoke, and found none. He heard of the fire the next day. Some of his furniture was burnt up, other parts of it were damaged by fire and smoke.
Between 4:30 and 5:30 p. m. o'clock defendant telephoned plaintiffs' daughter, Harriet Patton, and asked for her father. When she said he was out, defendant said he had completed the work at the house, but had not turned on the water.
About 6:00 or 6:30 p. m o'clock on this day Emmett Bagwell and his wife driving to Raleigh were travelling along the road, which is approximately 50 yards from this house. He drove into some smoke, looked toward the house, and saw it was on fire underneath. He backed up, and went to Lewis Wilkins' to call the Garner Fire Department. He returned to the house. He testified on cross-examination:
Lewis Wilkins went to the house. He testified on direct examination: On cross-examination 'he said:
W. R. (Jack) Johnson is chief of the Garner Fire Department. He and twelve firemen and fire fighting equipment went to this burning house. When he arrived, fire was coming out of the front gable and two windows on the Raleigh side of the house. A bedroom and the bathroom were on the Raleigh side of the house. The fire was concentrated in the area of the bedroom and bathroom, the worst damage was done in that area. He looked under the house. 'The wood underneath the bathroom area of the house, the underpinning around the hole was charred somewhat. ' He had to put some fire out up under the house.
A. F. Patton heard of the fire, and arrived at the house about 7:00 or 7:15 p. m. o'clock. The Garner Fire Department was there fighting the fire. He went in the house. The whole front of the ceiling was burnt, and the firemen had knocked holes in the kitchen wall. One bedroom was badly burned, and another destroyed. There was evidence of fire in the attic all over the house. The bathroom was burned up, and there was a big hole, about 3 1/2 feet in diameter, through the bathroom floor. 'There were no other holes burnt through the floor anywhere in the house. ' He could see beneath the hole in the bathroom floor the piece of copper pipe defendant had replaced.
About 9:00 or 9:30 p. m. o'clock that night defendant told him
A. F. Patton returned to this burned house during daylight, and examined the copper pipe defendant had replaced. He testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Byrd v. Brown
...in failing to inspect the work sites carefully to determine that no fire had been ignited. The cause considered in Patton v. Dail, 252 N.C. 425, 114 S.E.2d 87 (1960), is factually similar to the case at hand. After reciting the evidence at length, the court concluded that the following infe......
-
Hardware Mutual Insurance Company v. Lukken, 8538.
...N.E.2d 925; Johnson v. Nicholson, 159 Cal.App.2d 395, 324 P.2d 307; Matthews v. Carpenter, 231 Miss. 677, 97 So.2d 522; Patton v. Dail, 252 N.C. 425, 114 S.E.2d 87. Also see two non-torch fire cases: Albany Ins. Co. et al. v. Holberg, et al., 8 Cir., 166 F.2d 311, involving a match discarde......
-
Omnisource Corp. v. M
...machine caught on fire, there is reasonable affirmative evidence connecting the fire to Heat Wave's conduct. See, e.g., Patton v. Pail, 252 N.C. 425, 429-30, 114 S.E.2d 87, 90-91 (1960); Simmons v. John L. Roper Lumber Co., 174 N.C. 220, 93 S.E. 736, 738 (1917); cf. Moore, 173 N.C. 311, 92 ......
-
Snow v. Duke Power Co.
...in origin, then the case cannot be withdrawn from the jury though all possible causes have not been eliminated. Patton v. Dail, 252 N.C. 425, 114 S.E.2d 87 (1960); Drum v. Bisaner, 252 N.C. 305, 113 S.E.2d 560 (1960); Fitzgerald v. R. R., 141 N.C. 530, 54 S.E. 391 (1906). "Whether the circu......