Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Writing for the Court | MORGAN |
| Citation | 73 N.E.2d 200 |
| Parties | STEVENSON v. EAST OHIO GAS CO. |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1946 |
73 N.E.2d 200
STEVENSON
v.
EAST OHIO GAS CO.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.
Oct. 14, 1946.
Action by Robert Stevenson against the East Ohio Gas Company to recover damages on ground of defendant's negligence. From final judgment for defendant, after demurrer to amended petition had been sustained and plaintiff refused to plead further, the plaintiff appeals.-[Editorial Statement.]
Affirmed.
[73 N.E.2d 201]
Griff & Weiss and Frank A. Green, all of Cleveland, for plaintiff-appellant.
Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, P. J. Mulligan and Roger P. Brennan, all of Cleveland, for defendant-appellee.
MORGAN, Judge.
The municipal court of Cleveland in this case sustained defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's amended petition and plaintiff not desiring to plead further, final judgment was entered for defendant. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals.
The amended petition alleges in substance that prior to Oct. 20, 1944, defendant stored liquefied natural gas on its premises; that this gas was explosive in nature and constituted a dangerous nuisance; that on Oct. 20, 1944 by reason of the maintenance of said nuisance and by reason of the defendant's negligence, an immense fire developed in defendant's plant located east of E. 55th Street in Cleveland, Ohio, causing a general conflagration with the result that for the remainder of the day and for eight consecutive working days thereafter plaintiff was unable to pursue his daily work at his place of employment, The Bishop & Babcock Company, located in the vicinity, by reason of the great danger of still further explosions; that he was ready, willing and able to work; that The Bishop & Babcock Company had work for him to do; that he was employed at wages of $13.50 per day and that by reason of his loss of eight days he has been damaged in the sum of $105.60 for which amount he prays judgment.
The trial court sustained the demurrer to the amended petition on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The plaintiff in his pleading makes no claim that he sustained any physical injury as a result of the explosion. He does not even allege that his employer, The Bishop & Babcock Co., sustained any injury. His sole claim is that he had entered into a contract of employment with The Bishop & Babcock Company which was in the nature of a property right and that he was damaged because the negligence of defendant made it impossible for him for eight days to perform his employment contract because of the danger of further explosions.
Counsel for plaintiff, in their briefs, state that ‘we have been unable to find any case in a rather exhausive research of the authorities exactly covering the situation or facts of the case at bar.’ To us, this appears to be an important admission. In the country's history there have been at various times explosions and large conflagrations which have destroyed millions of dollars of property and have thrown many thousands of persons out of work. Many of those explosions and conflagrations undoubtedly have been caused by some one's negligence or at least such a claim could have been made and supported by substantial evidence. If the plaintiff's amended petition in this case states a cause of action, then each one of the thousands of workmen who lost wages by reason of fire, negligently started, would have had a cause of action for loss of wages, against the negligent person or company responsible for the fire. The fact that plaintiff has failed to find a single case where such a claim for loss of wages has ever been allowed or asserted is a weighty argument against the existence of any such right.
In the case of First National Bank of Greenfield v. Marietta & C. Railway Co., 20 Ohio St, 259, at page 280, 5 Am.Rep. 655, the court said: ‘In the very elaborate argument of counsel many cases have been referred to which we do not think it necessary to review. It may be sufficient to say that they are all clearly and broadly distinguishable from the present case. No case has been found in which an action, like the present, has been held maintainable. Indeed counsel frankly concede its novelty. While this objection may not be absolutely conclusive against the plaintiff, yet the fact furnishes strong evidence of the very general understanding of the legal profession on the subject.’
In the case of Dale et al. v. Grant et al., 34 N.J.L. 142 the court held, syllabus 1: ‘1. A party who by contract is entitled to all the articles to be manufactured by an incorporated company,-he, such party furnished the raw materials-cannot maintain an action against a wrongdoer who by trespass stopped the machinery of such
[73 N.E.2d 202]
company so that it is prevented from furnishing under said contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence v. O & G Indus., Inc., Nos. 19330
...employees' claims for lost wages arising from hotel fire caused by negligent design and construction); Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 73 N.E.2d 200, 201–204 (Ohio App.1946) (employee's claims for lost wages when gas explosion caused by defendant kept him from attending work for eight days)......
-
North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court, No. B109904
...denied liability in negligence for economic losses to "remote" plaintiffs. (Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co. (1946) 47 Ohio Law Abs. 586, 73 N.E.2d 200, 202-204; Ultramares Corp. v. Touche (1931) 255 N.Y. 170, 179-180, 174 N.E. 441, 10 In Seely, plaintiff had purchased a truck from the defend......
-
Burns, Jackson, Miller, Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, AFL-CI
...second cause of action is on the ground that it fails to allege special damages. (Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 47 Ohio L.Abs. 586, 73 N.E.2d 200 (Ct. of App., 1946); Smedberg v. Moxie Dam Co., 148 Me. 302, 92 A.2d 606 (1952); Swanson v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 42 Minn. 532, 44 N.W.......
-
Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc., No. 77-305
...of 'mass tort' the physical consequences are far narrower than the indirect economic loss. See, e. g., Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 73 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio "It is also true, on the other hand, that the economic harm likely to result from negligence is in some cases finite and easily predicta......
-
Lawrence v. O & G Indus., Inc., s. 19330
...employees' claims for lost wages arising from hotel fire caused by negligent design and construction); Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 73 N.E.2d 200, 201–204 (Ohio App.1946) (employee's claims for lost wages when gas explosion caused by defendant kept him from attending work for eight days)......
-
Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc., 77-305
...of 'mass tort' the physical consequences are far narrower than the indirect economic loss. See, e. g., Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 73 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio "It is also true, on the other hand, that the economic harm likely to result from negligence is in some cases finite and easily predicta......
-
S. Cal. Gas Co. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.(In re S. Cal. Gas Leak Cases), S246669
...Manor v. Finston (1960) 54 Cal.2d 632, 636, 7 Cal.Rptr. 377, 354 P.2d 1073, citing Stevenson v. East Ohio Gas Co. (Ohio Ct.App. 1946) 73 N.E.2d 200, 201-204.)Federal courts sitting in admiralty have dealt with industrial accidents perhaps most like the one before us: maritime spills of oil ......
-
In re One Meridian Plaza Fire Litigation, Civ. A. No. 91-2171
...tremendous liability for a single act. This is concisely explained by the court in Stevinson v. East Ohio Gas Co., 47 Ohio Law Abs. 586, 73 N.E.2d 200 If one who by his negligence is legally responsible for an explosion or a conflagration should be required to respond in damages not only to......
-
SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIES.
...F.2d 558, 563-69 (9th Cir. 1974) (applying California law). (175) See Ultramares, 174 N.E. at 444. (176) Stevenson v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 73 N.E.2d 200, 203 (Ohio Ct. App. (177) Id (178) See, e.g., Martinez v. Milburn Enters., Inc., 233 P.3tl 205, 208 (Kan. 2010). (179) DoBBS, supra note 21, [......