Sweetman Const. Co., Inc. v. Dakota Pump, Inc., 11345
| Decision Date | 19 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 11345,11345 |
| Citation | 226 N.W.2d 792,88 S.D. 650 |
| Parties | SWEETMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAKOTA PUMP, INC., Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
May, Johnson & Burke and John E. Burke and John C. Quaintance, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.
Shandorf, Bleeker & Boldt and Douglas R. Bleeker, Mitchell, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment entered on a jury verdict rendered in favor of defendant, contending that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial. We affirm.
On August 13, 1971, plaintiff entered into a contract with the town of Oacoma, South Dakota, for the construction of a municipal sewage system, which included, among other things, the installation of a sewer line and a prefabricated sewer lift station. Thereafter, plaintiff entered a contract with defendant whereby defendant agreed to supply certain equipment in accordance with the specifications set forth in the contract between plaintiff and the town. Pursuant to its contract with plaintiff, defendant furnished two self-priming sewage pumps and a prefabricated lift station.
Sometime early in 1972, plaintiff's employees picked up the lift station, together with the enclosed pumps and motors, control board and related fixtures, at defendant's plant and transported it to the construction site at Oacoma where they installed it on a foundation next to the 'wet well,' a holding tank that had been constructed to hold the sewage collected by the system. The lift station was designed in such a manner that when the sewage rose to a certain level within the wet well one of the pumps within the lift station would automatically start and pump the sewage through a force main to a sewage lagoon. When the sewage had been pumped down to a certain level within the wet well, the pump then automatically stopped. When the sewage again rose to the predetermined level, the other pump would automatically start and operate until the sewage was pumped down. If the quantity of sewage flowing into the wet well was such that one pump could not handle it, the other pump would start.
On or about April 24, 1972, one of defendant's servicemen went out to the construction site for the purpose of starting up the pumps in the lift station. This start-up consisted of setting the starting controls, checking to see that the motors were drawing the right amount of current, and checking the pressure on the discharge line from the pumps. Plaintiff's project supervisor, who was present at the start-up, testified that immediately after being started the pumps were noisy and vibrated considerably. He told the serviceman that he thought the pumps sounded extremely noisy to him. The serviceman testified, however, that in his opinion the pumps were not noisier nor did they vibrate more than other pumps that he had worked with and that there was nothing about the noise or vibration that caused him any concern.
On May 11, 1972, the residents of Oacoma began hooking into the sewage collection line constructed by plaintiff. Plaintiff did not make these individual hookups and had no control over the manner in which they were accomplished.
On May 25 and on June 1, 1972, representatives of the Farmers Home Administration (FHA), the governmental agency that was providing financing to the town for the sewer project, checked the project and the lift station area. Subsequent to the inspection, plaintiff's job supervisor notified defendant that the FHA was not accepting the pumps because of the noise and vibration.
On July 8, 1972, defendant's serviceman checked the pumps in response to a call from plaintiff and tightened the belts on one of the units. He testified that in his opinion the pumps appeared to be operating normally and that he observed nothing that caused him any concern about the operation of the pumps other than the fact that there appeared to be a lot of water coming into the wet well from the collection system, with the result that 'the pumps were running a lot of hours at that time.'
On July 21, 1972, the lift station flooded, causing the electrical controls on the pump motors to short circuit. Plaintiff was required to install some temporary pumps in the wet well in order to keep the sewage from backing up into the residences attached to the system.
After the lift station had been pumped dry, it was discovered that a lug bolt on the cover plate on one of the pumps had broken. This permitted the cover plate to open, which in turn resulted in sewage discharging from the pump into the lift station.
Plaintiff's job supervisor testified that after the lift station had been pumped out, he and his men took the inspection plates off the pumps and discovered no gravel in them. On the other hand, defendant's serviceman testified that when he opened the back of the pump on which the bolt had broken he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc.
...the manufacturer's hands. Engberg, supra. This burden may also be satisfied by circumstantial evidence. Sweetman Construction Co., Inc. v. Dakota Pump, Inc., S.D., 1975, 226 N.W.2d 792. With these standards in mind we turn to the evidence Testimony shows that the Honeywell valve is designed......
-
Pearson v. Franklin Laboratories, Inc., s. 11552-11559
...liability. In this we were not alone. See, e. g., Johnson v. American Motors Corp., N.D., 225 N.W.2d 57. In Sweetman Construction Co. v. Dakota Pump, Inc., S.D., 226 N.W.2d 792, we did recognize the possibility that there may be some limitations upon the applicability of the strict liabilit......
-
Kreager v. Blomstrom Oil Co.
...Crandell v. Larkin & Jones Appliance Co., 334 N.W.2d 31 (S.D.1983); Shaffer, 249 N.W.2d 251; and Sweetman Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dakota Pump, 88 S.D. 650, 226 N.W.2d 792 (1975). It is true that appellant could establish the existence of a defect in the hands of Texaco by circumstantial eviden......
-
Agristor Leasing v. Spindler, Civ. No. 84-1049.
...the warranty provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code and the concept of strict liability. * * * In Sweetman Construction Co. v. Dakota Pump, Inc., S.D., 88 S.D. 650 226 N.W.2d 792 1975, we did recognize the possibility that there may be some limitations upon the applicability of the stric......