Ramsey v. Standard Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1923
• Docket Number: 546.
• Citation: 120 S.E. 331,186 N.C. 739
• Parties: RAMSEY v. STANDARD OIL CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

120 S.E. 331

186 N.C. 739

RAMSEY v. STANDARD OIL CO.

No. 546.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 20, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, Madison County; McElroy, Judge.

Action by R. G. Ramsey, administrator of Edna Ramsey, deceased against the Standard Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepts and appeals. No error.

The admission over a general objection of expert testimony without a finding as to the qualifications of the witness is not error, in the absence of a request for such a finding; a general objection being insufficient to challenge the witness' qualifications.

The evidence on part of plaintiff tended to show that in 1922 defendant company negligently sold to a local merchant in said county, as good kerosene oil, an admixture of kerosene and gasoline, producing a highly explosive article; that this merchant, who only dealt in kerosene, acting under the belief that he was selling that kind of oil, and in entire ignorance of any admixture, in the usual course of trade, sold a small quantity to plaintiff, and shortly thereafter, on December 21, 1922, when plaintiff's wife, using proper and ordinary precaution, was endeavoring to light a fire with said oil, the same, owing to its changed condition, exploded setting fire to intestate's clothing, and inflicting severe burns from which intestate then died.

On part of defendant there was denial of the alleged negligence, a plea of contributory negligence, etc., and on issues submitted there was verdict for plaintiff, and assessing damages for the wrong and injury. Judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed, assigning errors.

George M. Pritchard and Martin, Rollins & Wright, all of Asheville for appellant.

Guy V. Roberts, of Marshall, and Mark W. Brown, of Asheville, for appellee.

HOKE J.

We have carefully considered the record and find no valid reason for disturbing the results of the trial. On the argument before us, it was chiefly contended that appellant's motion for nonsuit should have been allowed, but in our opinion the position cannot be maintained. While the testimony tends to show that both kerosene and gasoline were conveyed to the large storage tanks in the county with circumspect care there are facts in evidence as to defendant's methods in the local distribution of these articles which clearly permit the inference of negligence as the proximate cause of intestate's death, and, further, that these methods seem to have been in violation of the state statutes and the regulations of the Department of Agriculture, designed to prevent just such occurrences. And the jury having accepted this version of the matter, and having...