Uinta Pipeline Corp. v. White Superior Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 13950,13950 |
| Parties | UINTA PIPELINE CORPORATION, a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WHITE SUPERIOR COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Rex J. Hanson, Hanson, Wadsworth & Russon, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.
Harold G. Christensen, Worsley, Snow & Christense, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
The defendant Ken R. White Company appeals to this court from a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff cross appeals for prejudgment interest on the award which the trial court denied.
The appellant is a professional engineering firm and was retained by the plaintiff to provide for the installation of an engine driven single-stage compressor in connection with a gas well. The compressor was a reciprocating piston engine enclosed in a cylinder and fueled by natural gas.
The compressor is needed in order to raise the pressure of the gas from the well sufficiently high to permit it to enter the pipeline of the purchaser thereof.
Ahead of the compressor is a verticle metal tank used to collect and separate moisture from the natural gas. It is necessary to drain water from this metal tank occasionally and the appellant designated a large valve weighing approximately 12 pounds to be attached to the bottom of the tank. The tank had a female threaded opening while the valve had a female threaded opening of a different diameter. It was therefore necessary to attach the valve to the tank by means of swage nipple of some two inches in length.
Subsequently it was necessary to convert the compressor to a two-stage operation in order to increase the pressure due to a falling of pressure from the gas well. A new valve was installed, but the defendant's witness testified that there was no difference in the operation or safety of the new valve over the old one. It, too, was as heavy as the first one and was attached by a swage nipple.
After seven days operation a fire occurred which completely destroyed the compressor station.
The plaintiff sued claiming that the attaching of an unsupported heavy valve to the tank by means of the swage nipple was negligent and that the vibrations set up by the two-stage operation caused the threads of the swage nipple to fail and that escaping natural gas under pressure caused an explosion and fire which completely destroyed the compressor stage.
The appellant contends that there was no metal fatigue, but that an explosion occurred which caused the threads of the swage value to rupture.
There was conflicting evidence given as to whether the designating of a heavy valve on a two inch stem was according to good engineering practice. The defendant's witnesses testified that it was good engineering practice to designate a heavy valve, while the witnesses for the plaintiff testified to the contrary unless the heavy valve had some sort of support or bracing attached to it.
The jury had the prerogative to believe any witnesses which they chose to believe and where there is competent evidence to support their verdict (as there is in this case) we are not permitted to substitute our belief for theirs. 1
The defendant recognizes the rule that appellate courts do not reverse law cases on facts fairly found by the jury; but it claims that the trial court should have given its requested instructions to the effect that if it found that the use of a heavy drain valve on a swage nipple was an accepted engineering practice, then an engineer who followed that procedure could not be held to be negligent.
The instruction was properly refused for the reason that the evidence before the court and jury was that such a connection was acceptable engineering practice when the heavy valve was braced or otherwise supported and there was no testimony that a heavy drain valve unsupported on a swage nipple was acceptable in the engineering profession.
Other instructions given by the court to the jury amply set forth the law involved in the case.
The issue to be decided by the jury was not whether it was improper engineering procedure to install heavy drain valves, but rather whether it was negligence to do so without support.
We think the verdict rendered by the jury was justified and that there was no reversible error in the instructions given.
The respondent cross-appeals because of the refusal of the trial court to allow interest on the amount awarded prior to the date of judgment. The trial court specifically instructed the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Independent Clearing House Co.
...is not punitive but compensatory, and is allowed where necessary to make the prevailing party whole. See Uinta Pipeline Corp. v. White Superior Co., 546 P.2d 885 (Utah 1976); Fell v. Union Pacific Railway Co., 32 Utah 101, 88 P. 1003, 1005-07 (1907). Cf. First Security Bank of Utah v. J.B.J......
-
U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co.
...Inc., 560 P.2d 315, 317 (Utah), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 930, 97 S.Ct. 2634, 53 L.Ed.2d 245 (1977). Accord Uinta Pipeline Corp. v. White Superior Co., 546 P.2d 885, 887 (Utah 1976); Fell v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 32 Utah 101, 88 P. 1003, 1006 It is undisputed that USI's loss from the 1973 transa......
-
In re Universal Clearing House Co.
...whole. See First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. v. J.B.J. Feedyards, Inc., 653 P.2d 591, 599-600 (Utah 1982); Uinta Pipeline Corp. v. White Superior Co., 546 P.2d 885, 887 (Utah 1976); Fell v. Union Pacific Railway Co., 32 Utah 101, 88 P. 1003, 1005-07 (1907). These cases require only that the......
-
In re Universal Clearing House Co.
...the other party for some lack of merit in its case but is, rather, to make the prevailing party whole. See Uinta Pipeline Corp. v. White Superior Co., 546 P.2d 885, 887 (Utah 1976); Fell v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 32 Utah 101, 88 P. 1003, 1005-07 (1907); First Sec. Bank of Utah, N.A. v. J.B.J. ......