Rice v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 25 July 1963
• Docket Number: No. 36316,36316
• Citation: 384 P.2d 383,62 Wn.2d 591
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Roy E. RICE and Inez Rice, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Ralph G. JOHNSON and Yvonne Johnson, d.b.a. Valley Plumbing & Heating, Appellants.

Page 591

62 Wn.2d 591

384 P.2d 383

Roy E. RICE and Inez Rice, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Ralph G. JOHNSON and Yvonne Johnson, d.b.a. Valley Plumbing & Heating, Appellants.

No. 36316.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.

July 25, 1963.

Norman R. Nashem, Jr., Yakima, for appellant.

Gavin, Robinson, Kenrick & Redman, William H. Mays, Yakima, for respondent.

FINLEY, Judge.

Mr. and Mrs. Rice (plaintiffs-respondents) took a vacation trip in September 1959 for the duration of the Labor Day weekend, leaving unoccupied their recently constructed home located near Yakima, Washington. Upon their return, they found that a chrome-copper water pipe or tubing, fastened at one end to a water pipe stub on the floor, had become disengaged from the kitchen sink hot water faucet. Escaping water had covered the main floor of the house to a depth of about one-fourth inch, and had drained into the basement, where it accumulated to a depth of approximately twenty-eight inches. Considerable damage resulted respecting the furnishings and the interior of the house.

Plaintiffs instituted suit against the defendants (d/b/a Valley Plumbing & Heating Company), alleging negligent or faulty workmanship relative to the installation of the chrome-copper tubing and its connection with the kitchen sink hot water faucet. The defendants had contracted only for the plumbing finish work. The 'roughed-in' plumbing had been previously installed by another contractor. The particular plumbing work involved in this controversy was performed by the defendants' workmen during April 1959. The material used in this plumbing finish work was supplied by the plaintiffs.

The trial court sustained the plaintiffs' claim, and awarded damages. Now, on appeal, the appellants-defendants have assigned error to the following finding of fact by the trial court:

'That the separation of the hot water chrome tubing from its connection in plaintiff's home was not due to any excessive pressure and or sudden fluctuation of pressure in the Nob Hill Water System mains nor was it due to the lack of a pressure reduction valve or the lack of a temperature and pressure relief valve on plaintiff's intake line and hot-water tank respectively but rather was specifically caused either by the chrome copper tubing having been cut too short or said tubing not having been inserted into the seat of the faucet as far as it should have been or a combination of both deficiencies.'

In this case the pertinent factual or evidentiary conflict is a closely balanced one--so much so that, if we were functioning as the trier of the facts of first instance, we might well have reached different conclusions from those made by the trial judge respecting fault, causation and liability. However, it is not our function to retry disputes of fact de novo, but rather to determine whether from the evidentiary pattern reflected by the record it can be said by this court that it substantially supports the factual evaluations of the trial court. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards (1959), 54 Wash.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183.

The appellants contend that they are not liable because there is evidence in the record indicating that the hot water tank 'ran away' and overheated, thus generating steam and creating excessive pressure, causing the separation at the kitchen hot water faucet. While it is true that there is some evidence tending to support the appellants' factual contention, it is equally true that there is sufficient evidence negating their contention to justify the trial court in entering the negative portion of the disputed finding of fact, quoted above in full.

The affirmative portion of this disputed finding of...