Smith v. Insurance Co. of North America, No. 3-1279A355

Docket NºNo. 3-1279A355
Citation411 N.E.2d 638
Case DateOctober 21, 1980
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 638

411 N.E.2d 638
Ronald SMITH, d/b/a Smith's Trailer Sales, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 3-1279A355.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District.
Oct. 21, 1980.

Page 639

John J. Lorber, May, Oberfell, Helling, Lorber, Campiti & Konopa, South Bend, for appellant-defendant.

R. Kent Rowe, Paul M. Oleniczak, Robert C. Douglas, Jr., Rowe & Laderer, South Bend, for appellee-plaintiff.

CHIPMAN, Judge.

This appeal arises from a negligence action wherein Insurance Company of North America, (North America) as subrogee of its insured, Basil Metz, d/b/a Tredit Tire Company, (Tredit) sought judgment for damages allegedly caused by an employee of defendant-appellant Ronald Smith, d/b/a Smith's Trailer Sales (Smith). The complaint charged Smith's employee with negligently starting a trash fire and permitting it to spread to Tredit Tire's property, damaging its building. A jury verdict was returned against Smith for $45,000.

On appeal Smith asserts the trial court erred when it: (1) gave plaintiff's tendered instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, (2) refused to give one of defendant's tendered instructions, and (3) denied Smith's motion for judgment on the evidence at the close of plaintiff's case.

Judgment affirmed.

I. Res Ipsa Loquitur Instruction

At trial, North America tendered an instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which was given by the trial court. 1 Smith

Page 640

does not attack the substance of this instruction by arguing it incorrectly states the law on res ipsa loquitur except in so far as it does argue the instruction should not have been given because it is mandatory in nature. Rather than objecting to the form of the instruction, the crux of Smith's argument is that a res ipsa loquitur instruction was improper because (a) a Tredit employee had knowledge of the cause of the fire which destroyed Tredit's building as well as the material facts and circumstances surrounding the fire, and (b) Tredit's employee's knowledge of the situation was superior to the knowledge of the defendant's employee. We reject appellant's arguments regarding the impropriety of giving this instruction.

The record discloses that on December 1, 1975, Jack Craycraft, an employee of Smith's Trailer Sales, decided to burn the trash which had accumulated in the trailer sales office. The testimony showed it was customary for Smith to burn trash either in a trash pit or a barrel beside the pit, both of which were located approximately ten feet from a wire fence demarcating the property line between Smith and Tredit. Mr. Craycraft testified the trash barrel was nearly full of ashes, tin cans, and other refuse left from previous fires; he, nevertheless, placed trash in the top of the barrel, lit the trash, stood beside the fire a short time, and then moved back and watched the fire from the office porch. Shortly thereafter, the phone rang, and Mr. Craycraft indicated he went into the office to answer the phone and never again looked outside to check the fire's progress. All the witnesses agreed it was a cold, windy day.

It appears from the record that in the course of Tredit Tire's business, it often received mag wheels in cardboard boxes, and these boxes were periodically burned for Tredit in Smith's trash pit. The evidence was conflicting, however, as to whether there were wheel cartons in the trash pit beside the barrel on December 1, 1975. The evidence was not, however, in conflict that on the day in question, there was a tier of used tire casings approximately eighteen feet long stacked along the wire fence between the two properties. Tredit ordinarily stacked casings against its building and also along the fence. Since Tredit's building was approximately ten feet from the property line, there was room for two rows of tires next to its building, then a small path divided these tires from the row next to the fence. On December 1, 1975, there were between 250 and 350 tire casings stacked in this area waiting to be removed.

Michael Dines, Tredit's manager, testified that immediately before the fire was discovered, he was installing snow tires for a customer when the customer mentioned smoke was blowing by the garage door and questioned whether the tires outside might be on fire. Mr. Dines opened the garage door and went outside to look around, but saw only a normal trash fire in the pit next to the trash barrel. He further testified that after observing the fire was contained within the pit, he went back inside. Shortly thereafter his customer became alarmed by the smoke and when Mr. Dines looked out this time, he found the tires stacked along the fence were on fire.

Smith argues Tredit's employee's knowledge regarding this situation was greater than Mr. Craycraft's knowledge because

Page 641

Mr. Dines had seen the fire burning unattended on the ground, outside the trash barrel; consequently, Smith contends it was improper to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction. While evidence indicating the fire was on the ground helped to support the reasonable inference that the fire started by defendant's employee and left unattended spread to plaintiff's property, we do not believe Mr. Dines' observations support the conclusion that he had greater knowledge of the material facts and circumstances. This was not a situation where the parties were engaged in a common endeavor, and consequently, it was apparent the plaintiff should have knowledge equal to that of the defendant and be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • State v. Edgman, No. 3-680A171
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 13, 1983
    ...the State waived any alleged error regarding the denial of the first motion. Smith v. Insurance Co. of North America, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638. On appeal, therefore, we consider only those allegations of error pertaining to denial of the State's second At the close of all the evidenc......
  • Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Culligan Fyrprotexion, Inc., No. 1-1180A333
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 28, 1982
    ...361; Prest-O-Lite Company v. Skeel, (1914) 182 Ind. 593, 106 N.E. 365; Smith v. Insurance Company of North America, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638; The Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Companies v. League, Inc., (1973) 155 Ind.App. 342, 293 N.E.2d 58; Henley v. Nu-Gas Co., Inc., (1971) 149 In......
  • State v. Bouras, No. 1-380A57
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 29, 1981
    ...and was not adequately covered by other instructions given by the court. Smith v. Insurance Company of North America, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638; Piwowar v. Washington Lumber and Coal Company, (1980) Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 576. A tendered instruction is required to be given only if it co......
  • Brinegar v. Robertson Corp., No. 47A04-8811-CV-388
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 28, 1990
    ...actions for damages where the cause of the fire was known. They rely on Smith v. Insurance Company of North America (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638, where a trash fire was left unattended by defendant's employee on defendant's property. They also cite Shull v. B.F. Goodrich Company (1985),......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • State v. Edgman, No. 3-680A171
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 13, 1983
    ...the State waived any alleged error regarding the denial of the first motion. Smith v. Insurance Co. of North America, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638. On appeal, therefore, we consider only those allegations of error pertaining to denial of the State's second At the close of all the evidenc......
  • Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Culligan Fyrprotexion, Inc., No. 1-1180A333
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 28, 1982
    ...361; Prest-O-Lite Company v. Skeel, (1914) 182 Ind. 593, 106 N.E. 365; Smith v. Insurance Company of North America, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638; The Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Companies v. League, Inc., (1973) 155 Ind.App. 342, 293 N.E.2d 58; Henley v. Nu-Gas Co., Inc., (1971) 149 In......
  • State v. Bouras, No. 1-380A57
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 29, 1981
    ...and was not adequately covered by other instructions given by the court. Smith v. Insurance Company of North America, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638; Piwowar v. Washington Lumber and Coal Company, (1980) Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 576. A tendered instruction is required to be given only if it co......
  • Brinegar v. Robertson Corp., No. 47A04-8811-CV-388
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 28, 1990
    ...actions for damages where the cause of the fire was known. They rely on Smith v. Insurance Company of North America (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638, where a trash fire was left unattended by defendant's employee on defendant's property. They also cite Shull v. B.F. Goodrich Company (1985),......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT