Price v. Sinnott, 5728

• Decision Date: 04 November 1969
• Docket Number: No. 5728,5728
• Parties: Mary G. PRICE, Administratrix of the Estate of Delbert Green, Deceased, Appellant, v. M. C. SINNOTT and Hilda Sinnott, husband and wife, doing business as Sinnott Motel, and Marvin F. Porteous, doing business as Valley Propane Company, Respondents.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 837

460 P.2d 837

85 Nev. 600

Mary G. PRICE, Administratrix of the Estate of Delbert Green, Deceased, Appellant, v. M. C. SINNOTT and Hilda Sinnott, husband and wife, doing business as Sinnott Motel, and Marvin F. Porteous doing business as Valley Propane Company, Respondents.

No. 5728.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Nov. 4, 1969.

Flangas & Stone, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Richard P. Wait, Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon and Steven T. Walther, Reno, for respondents.

OPINION

BATJER, Justice.

Delbert Green, driving a diesel truck, on a trip from Phoenix, Arizona to Weed Heights, Nevada, stopped in Mina, Nevada, shortly after midnight on November 21, 1964 and registered at a motel owned by the respondents, M. C. Sinnott and Hilda Sinnott. He was assigned to room 'N' and late that afternoon his body was discovered in that room. The uncontradicted evidence revealed that he died of carbon monoxide poisoning. At the time his body was discovered there was a gas operated heater in the room burning at full capacity, and the bathroom window was open.

On November 23, 1964, George M. Hale, a safety inspector for the Liquefied Petroleum Board of Nevada, examined the heating and ventilation system of room 'N'. He found that combustion products from the heater were spilling into the room and that the vent pipe did not extend above the eaves of the building as required by statute and the regulations of the Liquefied Petroleum Board of Nevada, but instead terminated outside the exterior wall several feet below the eaves.

Although Hale found products of combustion spilling into room 'N' he did not find any trace of carbon monoxide even with all the doors and windows closed. The respondent, Marvin F. Porteous, although aware that the vent to room 'N' as well as the vents from many of the other rooms of the Sinnott Motel were not properly installed and maintained, continued to furnish propane gas to M, C. Sinnott for use at the motel.

Appellant Mary G. Price brought suit as administratrix of the Estate of Delbert Green against M. C. Sinnott and Hilda Sinnott, owners and operators of the Sinnott Motel, and Marvin F. Porteous, doing business as Valley Propane Company, who supplied liquified petroleum gas to the Sinnotts for use in the motel.

The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants (respondents) and against the plaintiff (appellant). The appellant moved for a new trial upon grounds that: (1) There was a manifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court; (2) that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; and (3) that over the plaintiff's specific objection the court erred when it instructed the jury. The appellant's motion was denied.

This appeal is taken on the grounds that the district court (1) gave a prejudicial instruction to the jury, and (2) erred in denying appellant's motion for a new trial.

The present law of this state requires an innkeeper to operate his lodging establishment so as to reduce to a minimum the possibility of asphyxiation or gas poisoning. The evidence concerning the venting of the gas heater in room 'N' as well as the death of Delbert Green in that room as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning show that the obligation was not met. NRS 447.140 ¹ and NRS 590.525. ² Holcomb v. Meeds,173 Kan. 321, 246 P.2d 239 (1952); Tomko v. Feldman, 128 Pa.Super. 429, 194 A. 338 (1937).

The respondent who supplied the gas to the motel admitted that he had observed the faulty venting of the gas heaters, that he had called this defect to the attention of certain operators of the motel and when the operators failed to correct the dangerous situation he continued to supply liquified fuel. When a gas company acquires knowledge of a dangerous condition it is its duty to terminate the supply until the defect is corrected. Miller v. Wichita Gas Co., 139 Kan. 729, 33 P.2d 130 (1934).

We turn to consider the contention that a prejudicial instruction was given. The instruction prompting the appellant's complaint involves the legal effect of a violation of a rule promulgated by the Nevada Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board. That rule provided that 'natural draft vents extending through outside walls shall not terminate adjacent to outside walls or below eaves or parapets.' The draft vent extending from room 'N' terminated below the eaves of the motel and was in violation of the rule. The court instructed the jury that '* * * one who has knowledge of, or who, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have knowledge of, the fact that he is permitting gas appliances to operate in violation of the foregoing rules and regulations of the Nevada Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board is negligent as a matter of law. * * *'

The appellant's assertion of error in the instruction is based on the fact that knowledge of the rule is required before liability could be imposed, and urges that a violation of the rule gives rise to negligence per se without regard to knowledge of the person charged. We agree that knowledge is not essential. However, we do not agree that a violation of an administrative regulation is negligence per se, since it lacks the force and effect of a substantive legislative enactment. Major v. Waverly and Ogden, Inc., 7 N.Y.2d 332, 197 N.Y.S.2d 165, 165 N.E.2d 181, 184 (1960); Prosser on Torts, 3rd ed. p. 203.

We prefer the rule that proof of a deviation from an administrative regulation is only evidence of negligence; not negligence per se. Neither is proof of compliance with such a regulation proof of due care as a matter of law, but rather, it is evidence of such care. Lightenburger v. Gordon, 81 Nev. 553, 583, 407 P.2d 728 (1965). This point of view best serves all interests since it accords appropriate dignity to administrative rules and concomitantly affords some leeway for those instances where the rule in issue may be arbitrary and its violation not necessarily unreasonable.

The jury instruction was, therefore, erroneous in advising that the rule violation was negligence per se. The error, however, benefited the appellant and could not have influenced the verdict for the respondents.

We next turn to consider whether the appellant is entitled to a new trial and we conclude that she is. NRCP 72(a). ³

Initially we believe that there was indeed a manifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court and as a matter of law on that contention alone the trial court was obligated to grant a new trial.

As reasonable men know, carbon monoxide is not carried around in a flask from which a draught may be taken from time to time to maintain a comatose condition. The medical testimony in this case indicated that oxygen is the antidote for carbon monoxide. When Green checked into the Sinnott Motel he was away from any carbon monoxide producing agency and he was away from such agencies until he went to room 'N' with its gas operated heater.

The giving of instructions to a jury is not merely a prefunctory act steeped in tradition. They are not given as a trap for the unwary or a springboard upon which error may be claimed. They are not given to be ignored. They must be meaningful, and they must be followed by the jury to arrive at a fair and impartial verdict. It is the duty of the jury to be governed by the instructions and when given they become the law of the case, whether right or wrong. If the jury does not follow them the verdict must be set aside as contrary to law. Had the jury followed the instruction on proximate cause ⁴ and applied that instruction in conjunction with the instruction on negligence, ⁵ to the evidence it would have been impossible for them to reach the verdict which they reached in this case.

The trial judge is bound by his instructions, and on the motion for a new trial one of his inquiries should have been been: Did the jury follow the instructions? Here it is apparent that the trial judge did not make that inquiry. The refusal of the trial court to set aside a verdict entered contrary to its instructions is an error of law and not within the mere discretion of the trial court. Stetson v. Stindt (CCA 3d) 279 F. 209, 23 A.L.R. 302.

In her motion for a new trial the appellant further contended that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict and that as to liability she was entitled to prevail as a matter of law and was at least entitled to a new trial for that reason.

The contention that liability was established as a matter of law was not presented to the trial court by an appropriate motion under NRCP 50(a). ⁶ At the close of the case the plaintiff apparently believed that the dispositive issues were issues of fact for the jury to resolve. Even the issue of proximate cause is almost always an issue of fact rather than one of law. Barreth v. Reno Bus Lines, Inc., 77 Nev. 196, 198, 360 P.2d 1037 (1961). This is so whether the negligence charged is negligence per se or ordinary negligence. Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220, 225, 351 P.2d 617 (1960); Paso Builders, Inc. v. Hebard, 83 Nev. 165, 172, 426 P.2d 731 (1967). It is solidly established that when there is no request for a directed verdict, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not reviewable. Christensen v. Stuchlik, 91 Idaho 504, 427 P.2d 278 (1967); Poland v. Parsekian, 81 N.J.Super. 395, 195 A.2d 660 (1963); Tsai v. Rosenthal, 297 F.2d 614 (8 Cir. 1961); Massaro v. United States Lines Company, 307 F.2d 299 (3 Cir. 1962); Harnik v. Lilley, 167 F.2d 159 (8 Cir. 1948). A party may not gamble on the jury's verdict and then later, when displeased with the verdict, challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support it.

However, an exception to this rule is found where there is plain error in the record or if there is a showing of manifest injustice. DeFonce Construction Company v. City of Miami, 256 F.2d 425 (5th Cir. 1958). This case comes within the exception to the rule. The obvious disregard, by the jury, of the court's instructions...