Hawaiian Pineapple Co. v. Eckert Engineering Corp.

DOOLING, J. Plaintiff-respondent Hawaiian Pineapple Company, which was engaged in canning peaches in 1951 in its San Jose plant, contracted with defendant-appellant Eckert Engineering Corporation to store certain ripe peaches under refrigeration in appellant's cold storage plant at Manteca. Beginning August 29,1951, and over several days thereafter 27,299 boxes of peaches were delivered to appellant by respondent for storage. A large portion of these peaches spoiled and respondent brought this action for damages alleging that by reason of appellant’s negligence the peaches were not properly refrigerated and the spoiling of the peaches resulted. Appellant cross-complained for the storage of the peaches at the contract rate. The court, sitting without a jury, found in favor of respondent and gave judgment for the damages found less the amount due appellant for the storage of the peaches.

Appellant argues on appeal: 1. that the evidence shows that respondent was repeatedly warned that the peaches were spoiling and did nothing to mitigate the damages; 2. that the method of computing the damages is erroneous and the amount awarded excessive.

While the evidence is in sharp dispute in many respects appellant claims that it shows without substantial conflict that on August 29 when the first peaches were delivered to its plant many of the peaches were soft and not “in too good shape to hold any length or period in a storage plant” and that Mr. Keeney, respondent’s field agent, was immediately advised of this fact by telephone and Keeney asked them to store the peaches anyway; that thereafter Mr. Rose, respondent’s plant manager in San Jose, was advised by telephone on September 1 and September 7 that the peaches were spoiling and did nothing until September 11, after a third telephone call to him on September 10, when respondent began to remove the peaches.

[373]However, as above pointed out, there is much conflict in the evidence and accepting the evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, most favorable to the judgment, as we must on appeal, we are satisfied that the evidence supports the judgment. The peaches had all been inspected and passed by agricultural inspectors shortly before they were delivered to appellant’s storage plant. Mr. Keeney’s version of the August 29 telephone call to him, which we must accept in support of the judgment, was that he was told by Mr. Burdick, representing appellant, that “he thought the peaches were overripe” and “I assured him that they had just passed a suitable test for canning or freezing.” Mr. Burdick saw some of the peaches, though not all because some came from a different loading point, before they went to appellant and those that he saw were fit for storage. There is also circumstantial evidence which would support the conclusion that the peaches delivered on August 29 were fit for storage. The storage room was 100 feet long and the refrigeration came from a blower at one end. There is evidence that the blower was not adequate to circulate the cold air properly to the other end of this room, and evidence that when the peaches were removed those near the blower were in good condition while those farther away from it were not. The entrance to the storage room was at the opposite end from the blower and, while no evidence is pointed out as to where the first peaches received were stored, it is a reasonable inference that the storage began near the blower and at the other end of the building from the entrance. That would certainly be normal procedure in any storage operation. There is further evidence that other peaches placed in cold storage at the same time by respondent in other cold storage plants did not spoil, and this included split loads where some of the peaches from the same grower received at the same time were delivered to appellant and the balance sent to another storage plant.