Biddlecomb v. Haydon

California Court of Appeal Feb 4, 1935 No. Civ. 8721Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the defendant lacked exclusive control over the instrumentality, and that the defendant was not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for nonsuit as there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

Issues

Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the instrumentality is not under the defendant's exclusive control.
Whether a defendant is liable for the negligence of an independent contractor hired to perform repairs.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of negligence against the defendant.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rule of res ipsa loquitur does not apply unless the instrumentality causing the injury is shown to have been under the exclusive control or management of the one sought to be charged with responsibility therefor.”

“It showed without contradiction that the Pacific Scientific Company, whose employee was repairing the valve, was an independent contractor.”

EDMONDS, J.,

pro tem.

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for personal injuries sustained as the result of an explosion occurring in the building occupied by the defendant. At the time of the injury

[363]

plaintiff, who was a minor, was standing outside the building. He testified that all he knew of the accident was that there was a great explosion.

The defendant operated an ice cream factory in the building where the explosion occurred. An ammonia refrigeration system was a part of the machinery used in the business. In connection with the compressor there was a valve for the purpose of shutting off the flow of ammonia when the temperature in the freezing box rose to a certain point. This valve was controlled by a thermostat in the freezing box and had given more or less trouble from time to time. On the day of the accident an employee of the defendant called the Pacific Scientific Company and asked them to send someone to make repairs. In response to the call a repairman by the name of Johnson appeared and went to work on the valve. After working for some two or three hours on the valve Johnson put it into the line for test in order to see if the connections were tight. While this test was going on a part of the valve broke allowing ammonia to escape into the room.

Three of the employees of the defendant, including one Larson, in charge of manufacturing operations for the defendant, were standing near Johnson watching him make the test. According to them a snap was heard and ammonia commenced coming out of the pipe into the room. They thereupon got out of the building. One of them put on an ammonia mask and attempted to go inside to shut off the receiving valve or king valve, but the ammonia was so strong it burned his body and he came out. The fire department was called and while waiting for the firemen Johnson, Larson and some others were standing in front of the door on Regent Street, which is referred to as the factory entrance. The explosion occurred after the arrival of the firemen and between five and ten minutes after Larson left the building on account of the escaping fumes.

The building in which defendant’s business was carried on is on the southwest corner of Regent and Market Streets in Inglewood. The refrigeration machinery occupied the southwest corner of the building. On the north front of the building and about ten feet from its westerly wall there was a door leading to the portion in which the machinery was located. From this door known as the factory entrance

Biddlecomb v. Haydon

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief