Schneider v. Rowell's, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 239--II,239--II |
| Citation | 487 P.2d 253,5 Wn.App. 165 |
| Parties | Lester E. SCHNEIDER, Appellant, v. ROWELL'S, INC., a Washington corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Gary R. Eliasen, of Merrick, Hofstedt, Schumm & Lindsey, Seattle, and Bradford Gierke of Johnson & Gierke, Tacoma, for appellant.
Howard P. Pruzan, of Miracle & Pruzan, Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal granted at the conclusion of the evidence in a tort case. Since ruling on such a motion involves no element of discretion and all evidence and inferences arising therefrom must be considered in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, Hemmen v. Clark's Restaurant Enterprises, 72 Wash.2d 690, 434 P.2d 729 (1967), Hunter v. Brown, 4 Wash.App. 899, 484 P.2d 1162 (1971), we will state the facts in such a light.
The plaintiff is a building contractor who was building a group of fourplexes in Puyallup. He engaged the defendant, Rowell's, Inc., to perform the plumbing work. To avoid construction delays, the parties agreed that one of defendant's plumbers would work on Saturday to install some bathtubs. He was given a key, so that he could unlock the doors to the building. He was the only person shown to have been on the premises on the Saturday involved. A goodly portion of the work to be done involved installation of copper water pipe, predominantly in the 'crawl space' under the floor of the building. Joints in copper tubing are fused by a process called 'sweating,' which involves the hearing of pipe fittings with a propane torch and then applying solder to the joints. This process took all morning and a part of the afternoon to complete. During the work, the flame of the torch was often applied to fittings within a few inches of wooden structural components built of fir lumber. After installing the water pipe, the plumber spent about 2 hours installing four bathtubs. When this work was completed, about 4:15 p.m., the plumber returned to the access hole he had used to gain entry under the house, and looked around for any tools he might have left. He did not go to the place where he had actually installed the waterpipe to inspect that area. After looking for tools, the plumber went home for the day, leaving the doors and windows of the building locked. No evidence was introduced of any other person's being in or under the burned building on the day in question.
At 5:52 p.m. the Puyallup Fire Department received a call that a fire was in progress at the building in question. This building was fully involved by the time the firemen arrived and they were forced to direct their efforts to preventing the fire from spreading to other structures nearby. Two expert witnesses testified that the source of the fire was in the area of one of the bathtubs installed by defendant's agent. The depth of char and intensity of the heat indicated that the fire had burned for some time before its discovery--perhaps 1 to 1 1/2 hours. It is possible that a fire of this sort might smolder for several hours before erupting into open flame, the record discloses. Indeed the fire inspector testified that it was his conclusion that the fire had started as a result of the plumber's activity in installing the water pipes. There is thus substantial evidence in the record from which the jury could find that the fire was caused by activities of the plumber. We have thus to consider only the problem of whether in causing this fire, the plumber transgressed any duty for the breach of which liability will attach. In other words, having found proximate causation on the record, can negligence be found?
In dismissing the action, the trial court believed that the question of negligence was controlled by Cambro Co. v. Snook, 43 Wash.2d 609, 262 P.2d 767 (1953) and that that case required dismissal of plaintiff's claim. We are unable to agree. In Cambro, the plaintiff building owner hired the defendant to dismantle metal soapmaking machinery in a building plaintiff intended to convert into a warehouse. The dismantling was to be done by means of acetylene cutting torches. The building was left open to passersby, who could enter through an open door. There was an absence of proof, the court said, that the torch was being used on the day of the fire. Thus, there were two equally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Behla v. R.J. Jung, LLC
...276, 373 P.2d 764 (1962) ; Marshall v. Bally’s Pacwest, Inc. , 94 Wash. App. 372, 379, 972 P.2d 475 (1999) ; Schneider v. Rowell’s, Inc. , 5 Wash. App. 165, 168, 487 P.2d 253 (1971). Note that the rule precludes a jury from speculating. Under such a rule the trial court plays the function o......
-
Byrd v. Brown
...whether the defendant exercised the requisite precaution and reversed a directed verdict for the defendant. In Schneider v. Rowell's, Inc., 5 Wash.App. 165, 487 P.2d 253 (1971), plaintiff, a building contractor, brought an action for damage from a fire allegedly caused by defendant's neglig......
-
Klossner v. San Juan County
...the only inferences which can be drawn from the record are purely conjectural and, therefore, insufficient. Schneider v. Rowell's, Inc., 5 Wash.App. 165, 167-68, 487 P.2d 253 (1971). However, the county did not submit its own affidavits and relies on Klossner's answers to interrogatories to......
-
Raybell v. State
...or more of which there would be no liability, a jury is not permitted to speculate on how the accident occurred. Schneider v. Rowell's Inc., 5 Wash.App. 165, 487 P.2d 253 (1971); Gardner v. Seymour, 27 Wash.2d 802, 180 P.2d 564 That rule is applicable only where the jury must speculate on h......