Sullivan v. Utah Gas Service Co., 8971

• Decision Date: 21 June 1960
• Docket Number: No. 8971,8971
• Citation: 353 P.2d 465,10 Utah 2d 359
• Parties: d 359 Sallie SULLIVAN et al, and John T. and June Curnutte, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UTAH GAS SERVICE COMPANY et al., Defendants, Erma Ransdell, d/b/a The Lariat Cafe, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 465

353 P.2d 465

10 Utah 2d 359

Sallie SULLIVAN et al, and John T. and June Curnutte Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UTAH GAS SERVICE COMPANY et al., Defendants Erma Ransdell, d/b/a The Lariat Cafe, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 8971.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 21, 1960.

Nielsen & Conder, Clyde & Mecham, Elias L. Day, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Rawlings, Wallace, Roberts & Black, Salt Lake City, Adams, Peterson & Anderson, Monticello, for respondent.

WADE, Justice.

This case is here on an intermediate appeal by Erma Ransdell, appellant herein, from a summary judgment in favor of respondents John T. Curnutte and June Curnutte on the question of her liability for injuries suffered by them as the result of an explosion in the Lariat Cafe.

From the pleadings and depositions it appears that Erma Ransdell as an owner of the Lariat Cafe in Monticello, Utah, agreed to buy natural gas in the cafe instead of butane gas which was being used. The pleadings alleged that the Utah Gas Service Company, a corporation, which desired to sell natural gas to the cafe, negligently installed its gas pipes and negligently disconnected the propane gas lines in the cafe and that appellant negligently invited the public into the cafe and allowed gas to escape there. That an explosion occurred and the proximate cause of the injuries of respondents was due to the Utah Gas Service Company's and appellant's negligence. Appellant admitted that the proximate cause of respondents' injuries was the negligence of the Utah Gas Service Company but denied that she was negligent.

It is appellant's contention that the negligence of the Utah Gas Service Company, which she admitted, cannot be imputed to her as a matter of law and that she has a right to a jury trial on the issue of liability.

It is respondents' contention that appellant employed the Utah Gas Company to convert from propane to natural gas, and, therefore, her admission that it was negligent in the installation of its gas lines, which negligence was the proximate cause of respondents' injuries, made her liable for these injuries because under the facts disclosed in the record and pleadings she comes within two exceptions to the general rule that an employer is not liable to third persons for the torts of an independent contractor. One exception is that as owner of the premises she had a nondelegable duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for business invitees and is, therefore, liable for the Gas Company's negligence as if it were her own. ¹ The other exception is the one in which the work which the employer has hired to be done is inherently dangerous, or could be dangerous to others unless particular precautions are taken. ² Respondents argue that because gas is an inherently dangerous substance having explosive propensities which may be set off by any flame or spark if it is allowed to accumulate in buildings by any leakage, great care must be taken in installing or disconnecting pipes to prevent such leakages and unless such care is taken injurious consequences must be expected to arise; therefore, the installation or disconnection of gas pipes are inherently dangerous to others unless particular precautions are taken.

If appellant had employed the Utah Gas Service Company to install gas pipes for her, respondents' contentions would be meritorious. The fault with the contention is that it assumes a relationship...