Weinhaus v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | 27428 |
| Citation | 210 S.W.2d 710 |
| Parties | WEINHAUS et al. v. MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INSURANCE CO |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
'Not to be reported in State Reports.'
Leahy & Leahy and G. R. Miller, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Moser Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary & Carter and Lee M. Carter, all of St. Louis, for respondents.
HUGHES
This is an appeal from a judgment for $ 2,000 in favor of plaintiffs and against the surety on a 'plumber's' bond executed by Jack Karfeld, as principal, and the Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, as surety, given to the City of St. Louis, as required by ordinance. (Section 4891 Revised Code of St. Louis, 1966.)
Section 4891 of the ordinance is as follows:
Another section of the ordinance as affecting plumbers is Section 4932, Revised Code of St. Louis, 1936, as follows:
'Workmanship shall be of such character as fully to secure the results sought to be obtained in all sections of this ordinance.'
The bond, on which plaintiffs sue, is as follows:
'Know All Men By These Presents, that we Jack Karfeld as principal and Mass Bond & Ins Co and as securities are held firmly bound unto the City of St. Louis, in the sum of Two Thousand Dollars, to the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators.
'Witness our hands and seals, this 14 day of April A.D. 1943.
'The condition of the foregoing obligation is such, that if the said Jack Karfeld doing business as plumber shall faithfully observe all ordinances of the city pertaining to plumbing or excavations, and all rules, and regulations established under authority of such ordinances, and shall execute all plumbing work done by them or under their control, in a workmanlike manner, and shall employ no workmen but such as have certificates of registration, as required by ordinance, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City of St. Louis from all accidents and damages caused by any negligence in protecting their work, or by any unfaithful or inadequate work done by themselves or their employes, then this obligation to be void; otherwise to be of full force and effect.
'This bond shall also be for the benefit of persons injured, or whose property is injured by any violation of or neglect to observe the requirements of the ordinances for which it is given.'
Plaintiffs were the owners of certain residential property in St. Louis, and one Catherine Cox was their tenant. Arrangements had been made by the owners of the property for the installation of a gas water heater in the kitchen of that portion of the property occupied by Mrs. Cox as tenant. Jack Karfeld was hired as the plumber to make such installation, which he did on April 20, 1944.
On the afternoon of the day that Karfeld installed the gas water heater Mrs. Cox, while using the heater, became sick from fumes coming from the newly installed heater, and was physically injured and disabled thereby.
The evidence of three witnesses for the plaintiffs, and of Jack Karfeld, testifying for the defendant, showed that Karfeld connected the fume pipe, the purpose of which was to carry off gas fumes, with a flue that had been in use before, and without any examination to see whether the flue was in a condition to carry off the fumes. Plaintiffs' evidence showed that after Mrs. Cox became sick a man from the gas company was called, and he found that the flue was stopped up with soot to the extent that he removed soot which filled a 5-gallon can.
Thereafter Mrs. Cox brought suit against Sol Weinhaus and Rose Weinhaus and Jack Karfeld, for damages sustained because of the negligence of the plumber, Jack Karfeld, in the installation of the gas water heater. During the pendency of that case the attorneys who represented the defendants therein, Sol Weinhaus and Rose Weinhaus, by letter, advised Jack Karfeld that their clients would look to him for reimbursement for any loss or expense they might suffer as a result of the suit instituted by Mrs. Cox and tendered to him the defense of the case. Said attorneys also conferred with attorneys representing the Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, and called upon that company to protect their clients in connection with the claim asserted by Mrs. Cox, and notified the company that if it took no action their clients would be forced to compromise and settle the suit and would then proceed against the bonding company as surety on the plumber's bond of...
To continue reading
Request your trial