Smith v. General Petroleum Co.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1958
• Citation: 324 P.2d 44
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: William V. SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GENERAL PETROLEUM COMPANY et al., Defendants, Kern County Land Company, Defendant and Appellant. * Civ. 5637.

Page 44

324 P.2d 44

William V. SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GENERAL PETROLEUM COMPANY et al., Defendants Kern County Land Company, Defendant and Appellant. ^*

Civ. 5637.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

April 14, 1958.

Hearing Granted June 11, 1958.

Oscar F. Catalano, Bakersfield, for appellant.

Borton, Petrini, Conron & Brown, Bakersfield, for respondent.

BARNARD, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal in an action for damages for personal injuries. The defendant's demurrer to the first amended complaint had been sustained, with leave to amend, but the plaintiff elected not to amend.

The defendant owned land adjoining a public highway, and the roots of some large trees on this right of way extended into the ground underneath the defendant's property. The defendant had given the county permission to enter upon its land for the purpose of removing these trees and roots. Long prior thereto the defendant had permitted an oil company to install an underground pipeline near this right of way. While the plaintiff, an employee of the county, was using heavy equipment in removing these roots from the defendant's land the steel blade of the equipment came into contact with this steel pipeline, through which highly combustible gases and fluids were flowing, causing an explosion which injured the plaintiff.

In addition to these general facts the amended complaint alleged that the defendant and Kern County desired and wished to have these trees and roots removed and excavated from said right of way and from defendant's land; that at the time of granting permission to do this work the defendant knew that it would be necessary for the county and its employees to use heavy steel equipment in doing this work, and negligently failed to advise the county and its employees, including the plaintiff, of the fact that this pipeline which carried dangerous combustible gases and fluids was buried underneath and near the surface of the defendant's land without being so marked, and near or at the place where it was necessary for the county's employees and the plaintiff to use heavy equipment in order to remove said trees and roots; that the defendant negligently failed to place markers at sufficient intervals to advise the plaintiff of the existence of this pipeline containing dangerous gases and fluids, and negligently failed to advise the plaintiff that there buried steel pipes carried highly dangerous and combustible gases and fluids; and that, as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered certain permanent injuries.

The question presented is as to whether the amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action. In passing upon the sufficiency of such a complaint its allegations must be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties, the pleading must be reasonably interpreted and read as a whole, and any defects in the pleading which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties should be disregarded. Schaefer v. Berinstein, 140 Cal.App.2d 278, 295 P.2d 113.

The appellant contends that it appears from this complaint that he, as an employee of Kern County and with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, went upon the defendant's property for the purpose of doing work which was of common interest and mutual benefit to both the county and the defendant; that an underground and concealed pipeline containing dangerous gases and fluids was maintained on the premises with the knowledge and consent of the defendant; that the defendant negligently failed to give the plaintiff notice or warning of the underground pipeline and its contents; and that while plaintiff was doing the work with the necessary equipment the steel blade thereof came in contact with the concealed pipeline, causing an explosion resulting in his injuries. It is argued that it sufficiently appears from the complaint that the appellant was an invitee on these premises, for the purpose of doing work which was of benefit to both the county and the respondent, and that the respondent owed him the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition, and to give warning of latent or concealed perils. It is further argued that even if it be assumed that appellant's status at the time was that of a licensee, the concealed pipeline containing highly combustible and dangerous gases and fluids amounted to a trap to one who was thus working...