Hinds v. Wheadon

California Supreme Court Feb 10, 1942 No. L. A. 18075Published

Before: Gibson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when an accident occurs under the exclusive control of the defendant that would not ordinarily happen without negligence, thereby precluding a nonsuit and requiring the case to be submitted to the jury.

Issues

Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to establish a prima facie case of negligence in a wrongful death action involving an explosion.
Whether the defendants maintained sufficient exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the injury to warrant an inference of negligence.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In such cases an inference arises that the accident resulted from a want of proper care on the part of the defendants.”

“It is incumbent upon the defendant in such a case to bring forth evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, and under such circumstances a nonsuit is improper since the case should be submitted to the jury.”

GIBSON, C. J. —

This action was instituted by the widow and minor children of George T. Hinds, deceased, to recover damages for his wrongful death, which was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants. The deceased was employed as a welder by E. H. Irwin who did business as the Irwin Welding Works. The defendant, I. M. Wheadon, did business as the Allied Petroleum Company, and in connection with his business employed the defendants Chester Fisher and Mark Haines. On February 23, 1937, Hinds was directed by his employer to go to the premises of the Allied Petroleum Company for the purpose of performing certain welding operations which had been ordered by defendants. The defendant Fisher informed him that a steel dehydrator tank, used in treating crude petroleum, had been prepared for the welding operation, that is, that it had been washed out and filled with water. In order to demonstrate that the tank was filled with water, Fisher ordered that the pump be started. When water flowed from a bleeder line at the top of the tank, Hinds said that it was satisfactory and began the welding operation which consisted of affixing metal brackets or straps to the outside of the dehydrator tank. The lower bracket was welded first and then Hinds commenced to work on the upper one. Shortly after Hinds commenced the final portion of the top weld, the tank exploded and he was killed. After the introduction of evidence by plaintiffs,

[460]

the trial court granted defendants’ motion for a nonsuit upon the theory that no evidence of negligence on the part of defendants had been produced. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of nonsuit.

Where a judgment is rendered upon a motion for nonsuit, the court must assume that all evidence received in favor of the plaintiff relevant to the issues is true. All presumptions, inferences and doubtful questions must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff.

(Richardes

Richardes,

211 Cal. 392 [295 Pac. 816];

Mitchell Camera Corp.

Fox Film Corp.,

8 Cal. (2d) 192 [64 Pac. (2d) 946];

Hinds v. Wheadon

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief