Stone v. Texas Co.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1920
• Docket Number: 386.
• Citation: 105 S.E. 425
• Parties: 180 N.C. 546, 12 A.L.R. 1297 v. TEXAS CO. STONE
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

105 S.E. 425

180 N.C. 546, 12 A.L.R. 1297

STONE v. TEXAS CO.

No. 386.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 8, 1920

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; McElroy, Judge.

Action by John G. Stone against the Texas Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

In a negligence case where violation of an ordinance is shown, the question of proximate cause is for the jury.

The negligence complained of was: First, that the defendant had kept on its premises a large and unlawful quantity of gasoline, and stored the same in an unlawful manner, contrary to the ordinance of the city of Greensboro; second, that it kept no watchman upon its premises; third, that it violated section 412 of the ordinances of Greensboro; fourth, that it permitted gasoline in large quantities to flow freely upon the streets and sidewalks of the city of Greensboro, where it could be easily, and was, ignited; that, as a result of such negligence, inflammable vapors exploded at about 7 o'clock a. m. on the 3d day of May, 1919, and that such explosion was so great as to wreck and ruin the plaintiff's dwelling and many others.

Some of the material parts of the evidence in this case, upon which the verdict of the jury is based, are as follows: (1) Over 30,000 gallons of gasoline were stored on defendant's premises inside the corporate limits of the city of Greensboro, in a populous community. (2) A warehouse used to fill metal drums of 50 or 60 gallon capacity with gasoline. (3) Red coloring matter kept in warehouse or basement. (4) A large stream of red-colored gasoline flowing from such basement into Lithia street. (5) Trains passing within 30 feet of warehouse and over gasoline. (6) Gasoline fumes will explode from flame or sparks. (7) Explosion in warehouse--flame at same time in warehouse and street where gasoline was seen. (8) Two metal drums used for gasoline were found in the ruins--head blown out of one of them. (9) No watchman was kept on defendant's premises. (10) Violation of city ordinance of Greensboro in storing and keeping gasoline, conveyed into house by pressure, etc. (11) Gasoline at ordinary temperature gives off an inflammable and explosive vapor, and it occurred in this instance, causing the explosion.

The case was tried, and submitted to the jury upon the theory of negligence, and the burden of proving actionable negligence was put upon the plaintiff. It developed on the trial that the defendant established, operated, and maintained upon its premises certain unlawful structures wherein gasoline and kerosene in large quantities were stored and was liable to the plaintiff for the injury resulting therefrom. On the 3d day of May, 1919, the defendant's plant was located inside the corporate limits of the city of Greensboro at the intersection of Lee and Lithia streets. It was bounded on the south by Lee street, on the west by Lithia street, on the north by the double tracks and side tracks of the North Carolina and Southern Railroads, and on the east by dwellings, built on comparatively small lots, the plaintiff's lot being the next lot east of the defendant's premises and 50 feet from the east line thereof. The plant was located in a populous section of the city, and about 200 feet from the State Normal and Industrial College, a large educational institution, inhabited by many people. Lithia street slopes to the north and passes under the tracks of the above-named railroads; it being the main line of the Southern Railroad and a large number of trains pass and repass the defendant's premises each day.

The defendant used its premises as a storage plant for gasoline and other products, which it sold at wholesale. It had thereon a warehouse, under which there was a large basement pump-house, shed, and three large tanks, a vertical tank with a capacity of 60,000 gallons used for the purpose of storing gasoline, and two horizontal tanks, each with a capacity of 15,000 gallons, one of which was used for the storage of gasoline and the other for kerosene. The warehouse was on the northwest corner of the lot, and its north platform was even with the railroad siding. This warehouse was used for the storage of barreled goods, and metal drums were filled in the warehouse for shipment, the metal drums holding from 50 to 60 gallons of gasoline. The two horizontal tanks were just south of the warehouse, and were elevated some 4 or 5 feet above the ground. The vertical tank was east of the warehouse, and stood some distance above the ground. The gasoline was conveyed to a vent in the warehouse from the storage tanks above mentioned by pipe lines, and was forced into the warehouse by pressure. Gasoline could also be taken from the horizontal tanks by truck, there being a vent in the front of such horizontal tanks. There was a drain from the basement of the warehouse that emptied on Lithia street at a point about 15 feet from the railroad embankment.

At the time above mentioned, there was an explosion in the warehouse of the defendant company. The plaintiff was standing in his kitchen at the time, and on looking around saw the main storage house explode and burst into flames. He saw pieces of scantling and paper roofing falling in every direction.

Some of the weatherboarding of the warehouse fell in his garden pieces of it being 10 and 12 feet long. The explosion wrecked the plaintiff's dwelling by shattering the window glasses, knocking the plastering from the walls, and twisting and bending the timbers of his house, as described in the record. He also observed that there were flames on Lithia street in the gutter, or side ditch, and by the curbstone. After the fire was over, he saw two metal drums in the ruins of the same kind as those in which they kept gasoline. These were in the cellar to what had been the warehouse. One drum had the head blown out. On the same day, after the fire had subsided, he saw the defendant fill one of its truck cars with gasoline. The truck car held about 100 gallons of gasoline, and was filled from one of the horizontal tanks. There were about 30,000 to 40,000 gallons of gasoline in the vertical tank. Just prior to the explosion six witnesses saw a large quantity of gasoline flowing from a little drainpipe leading from the northwest corner of the defendant's warehouse, at a point about 10 or 15 feet from the railroad embankment. This stream of gasoline was 24 to 30 inches wide in some places, and averaged a width of 12 inches and a depth of 1 inch. It had run down in the gutter on Lithia street a distance of about 75 or 80 feet, and was breaking its way along. It had a red color. After the fire was over, Mr Scott, the deputy insurance commissioner, found a quantity of red coloring matter in the basement of the warehouse.

Gasoline at ordinary temperature gives off inflammable vapors, which contain carbon and hydrogen, and when they combine with oxygen it explodes, if it comes in contact with fire. Gasoline could become ignited. It could ignite before it reached a certain state. It could be done by a spontaneous combustion, but that is rare. Usually it has to be ignited by flame or spark of some kind. (By reference to the record in the Fox Case, it will be seen that the Winston train was passing the defendant's premises just as the explosion occurred. The engine had passed and the window panes were broken in some of the cars.) Gasoline will give off inflammable vapors, even when the temperature is below zero, according to the testimony of W. M. Allen, state oil chemist.

The jury upon the evidence and under the charge of the court returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $800.

Judgment upon the verdict, and defendant appealed.

Guy Stevens, of New York City, Roberson & Dalton, of High Point, and Brooks, Sapp & Kelly, of Greensboro, for appellant.

Wilson & Frazier, W. P. Bynum and R. C. Strudwick, all of Greensboro, for appellee.

WALKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

This is one of several cases of the same kind, and was tried, under the guidance of the able and learned judge who presided, upon the theory of negligence and the breach of the ordinance of Greensboro, requiring that such a business as that of the defendant must be conducted under a license, which may be issued when the applicant for it has submitted to the proper city authorities its plans and specifications, and they have been approved by the board. No such thing was done by the defendant, before it started in business, nor has it since been done, so far as appears in the case. The police regulations as to the erection and use of buildings and other structures for the purpose of carrying on the business of selling and distributing kerosene, gasoline, and other petroleum products are well within the governmental powers ordinarily possessed by cities and towns, as we have very recently decided. Gulf Refining Co. v. McKernan, 179 N.C. 314, 102 S.E. 505, citing State of Missouri ex rel Gaslight Co. v. Murphy, 170 U.S. 78, 18 S.Ct. 505, 42 L.Ed. 955; Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U.S. 171, 35 S.Ct. 511, 59 L.Ed. 900; Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 927. So that it is a fact that at the time of the terrible disaster the defendant was engaged in conducting an unlawful business, because not authorized by any license to do business at all, or it was conducting the business in an unlawful manner, endangering the lives and property of the inhabitants of this growing and prosperous city, and which of these two is correct, if both are not, can make no material difference. The question as to whether the violation of a statute, or ordinance, especially one intended to safeguard the citizens of a town and their property, is negligence per se, or only...