Dunlavy v. Nead

California Court of Appeal Jan 9, 1940 No. Civ. 6241Published

Before: Tuttle

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the ignition of gasoline was not the proximate cause of the injury, and that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the employee acted prudently.

Issues

Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the ignition of gasoline in the shop.
Whether the ignition of the gasoline was the proximate cause of the appellant's injuries.
Whether the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the respondents were free from negligence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“But this doctrine cannot be invoked as a rule of evidence in a case where the alleged act of negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury, and where there was an independent intervening agency”

“The proximate cause of the injury was not the ignition of the gasoline, but the act of the employee, as indicated.”

“We are of the opinion that the trial court could reasonably infer, from the evidence, that such employee had no reason to believe that appellant was about to enter the doorway in question when the flaming can was placed there”

TUTTLE, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of alleged negligence of respondents. Upon a trial before the court, judgment was rendered for respondents, and appellant now appeals from such judgment.

Respondent Nead conducts a machine shop in the city of Sonora. This shop consists of the building where work is performed. At the rear of such building there is a door which opens into an area where respondent deposited junk from his shop, including scrap iron, bolts and nuts of various sizes. On the date of the accident appellant went to said shop for the purpose of having certain holes cut in a metal plate so that an engine could be bolted to it, using it as a foundation. While the foreman of respondent Nead (defendant Tweed), was working on the plate in the shop building, appellant, without being directed to do so, and of his own volition, went out the rear door mentioned above,

[480]

got a nut from the junk pile outside, and started to enter the door. Just at that time a can of gasoline within the building caught fire, another employee of respondent Nead (defendant Valenzuala), put this flaming can out the rear door. Some of the flames enveloped appellant as he was about to enter the door, and burned his legs. It is alleged in the complaint that the injuries inflicted were permanent.

It is contended by appellant that there is no evidence to support the finding to the effect that respondents were free from negligence. In other words, he contends that the evidence adduced is reasonably susceptible of

one

construction only—that respondents were negligent. In the case of

Vaughn

Bixby,

24 Cal. App. 641-643 [142 Pac. 100], it is said:

“Even if there be no conflict in the evidence, nevertheless, if the inferences fairly deducible therefrom are such that different conclusions might rationally be drawn therefrom by men equally sensible and impartial, the conclusion reached by the jury should be deemed final and not disturbed on appeal for want of sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.

Dunlavy v. Nead

AI Brief

TUTTLE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

THE COURT.

AI Brief