Case Title: Wehkamp v. City of Garden City

Citation: 187 Kan. 310, 356 P.2d 826

Docket Number: 41,968

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1960-11-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
187 Kan. 310 (1960)
356 P.2d 826
G.M. WEHKAMP, Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF GARDEN CITY, FINNEY COUNTY, KANSAS, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee.
No. 41,968

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed November 12, 1960.
John Staley Holden, of Cimarron, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Lloyd H. Haag, City Attorney, argued the cause, and Dale E. Saffels and Clifford R. Hope, Jr., both of Garden City, were with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
The city of Garden City owned and operated a municipal airport at which was located a storage hangar. Plaintiff owned an airplane and rented storage space in the hangar. In the early morning hours of March 6, 1956, the hangar was completely destroyed by fire  as was the airplane which was stored therein at the time.
Plaintiff brought this action against the city to recover the value of his airplane. It was predicated upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. At the close of his evidence the city moved for a directed verdict. The motion was sustained. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied and judgment in favor of the city was entered on the verdict. Plaintiff has appealed.
It is apparent the motion for a directed verdict was treated as *311 a demurrer to the evidence. The sole question, as stated by both parties  is whether plaintiff's evidence established a cause of action for recovery under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur sufficient to go to the jury.
The theory of plaintiff's case, as alleged in his petition, was:
..............
The answer of the city alleged that the relationship between it and plaintiff was that of lessor-lessee; that no inflammable material was kept or stored in the hangar; that in the early morning hours of the date in question the hangar, together with plaintiff's airplane, was completely destroyed by fire of undetermined origin, but that neither the city nor its agents, servants and employees, were in any respect negligent in the maintenance and care of the hangar, and that plaintiff's damage was not caused or contributed to by any negligence on the part of the city or its employees. The answer further alleged that the plaintiff was well acquainted with the airport, its manner of maintenance, and the care and facilities available for the prevention and fighting of fires; that the risk of being damaged, as complained of by plaintiff, was a risk incident to the storing of the airplane in the hangar, and that notwithstanding the fact *312 plaintiff knew the conditions existing at the airport and the risks involved in storing his airplane in the hangar, he continued to store the airplane and thereby assumed the risk of being damaged.
At the beginning of the trial it was stipulated that the city had been served with the statutory notice of plaintiff's claim and that it had been denied, and that the value of the airplane was $1,250.
In view of the fact the sole question concerns the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence to make out a case for submission to the jury under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and because of the fact his evidence, as abstracted, is very brief  we quote all of it directly from the abstract:
"G.M. WEHKAMP.
Dear Mr. Wehkamp:
"NEVILLE DUNNAN.
"A. It was. (T 27).
"A. To my knowledge he hadn't moved it, no (T 28)."
As stated previously, at the close of plaintiff's evidence the city moved for a directed verdict  the basis of the motion being that the plaintiff "has failed to produce any evidence as to what caused the fire and as the evidence now stands there can only be conjecture as to the cause of the fire, and in such case the adoption [sic] of res ipsa loquitur does not apply."
This motion was sustained and the jury, in compliance with the court's direction, returned a verdict in favor of defendant city.
Plaintiff sets out five specifications of error. All, however, involve *314 and are based upon the sole question in the case which has heretofore been stated.
There is no occasion to enter into a lengthy discussion of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The subject has been covered in many decisions of this court. We mention but a few.
One of the leading cases is Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 249 Pac. 599, in which it was said:
The opinion cites with approval language in cases from other jurisdictions to the effect that the doctrine is merely a short way of saying that the circumstances attendant upon an accident are themselves of such a character as to justify the conclusion that the accident was caused by negligence; that the inference of negligence is deducible, not from the mere happening of the accident, but from the attendant circumstances, and that the doctrine, dangerous and uncertain at best, is never to be applied except where it not only supports the conclusion contended for, but also reasonably excludes every other.
To the same effect is Starks Food Markets, Inc., v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 134 P.2d 1102, in which it was held:
In that case a gasoline tank in a public garage was being filled from a gasoline tank truck and a fire occurred. The owners of the *315 building, various tenants therein, and others claiming injury to property as a result of the fire, brought suit to recover damages. The question in the case concerned the sufficiency of the several petitions to state a cause of action based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. In holding that they did not it was, among other things, said:
The case of Waddell v. Woods, 158 Kan. 469, 148 P.2d 1016, 152 A.L.R. 629, although being an action against a physician for malpractice predicated upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, nevertheless contains a thorough discussion of the application of the doctrine generally, and in the course of the opinion it was said:
In Emigh v. Andrews, 164 Kan. 732, 191 P.2d 901, it was held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence and not of substantive law; that a mere presumption is not a thing that "speaks for itself," and that the established rule is that liability cannot result from an inference upon an inference or from presumption upon presumption. In the course of the opinion, speaking of the doctrine, it was said:
It was further said:
To the same general effect is Pierce v. Schroeder, 171 Kan. 259, 232 P.2d 460, where in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the syllabus it was held that the mere fact an accident happens or an event occurs in which injury results is not sufficient to establish negligence; that negligence is never presumed but must be established by proof, and that where direct proof is lacking the circumstances may be proved, and if they leave no conclusion to be drawn other than that the defendant be at fault they may be shown to make a prima facie case and to warrant application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Measured by the foregoing rules relating to the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur  and particularly with respect to fires  we have no difficulty in concluding that plaintiff's evidence fell far short of making out a case sufficient to go to the jury. All of the evidence  as abstracted  has been set out. Nowhere do we find any evidence of "attendant circumstances" from which it reasonably may be inferred that the loss occurred only because of negligence on the part of defendant city or its employees. In fact, the most that can be said of the evidence is that it merely establishes that on the night in question  fire of undetermined origin  destroyed the hangar and the airplane which was stored therein. The cause of the fire is left entirely to conjecture  which, under the authorities  is insufficient to bring the case under res ipsa loquitur.
Plaintiff cites Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hulme, 168 Kan. 483, 213 P.2d 645, 16 A.L.R.2d 793, as supporting his contention. The case is readily distinguishable. There, a petition alleged loss by fire of an automobile which had been left with defendant for repairs to its gasoline line and tank. The automobile and the garage at which it was being repaired, and the tools and equipment used to repair it, were at all times under the exclusive control of defendant. It was further alleged that while defendant was draining gasoline out of the gas tank and line into an open container inside his garage a fire broke out which destroyed the automobile, and that defendant's negligent operation of his garage and negligence in repairing the automobile caused the loss. In holding the allegations sufficient to invoke the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it was said:
The facts of the case before us likewise are distinguishable from those in Strange v. Price Auto & Service Co., 169 Kan. 98, 218 P.2d 208, which was a bailment case.
The instant case also is distinguishable from Waddle v. Brodbeck, 176 Kan. 583, 272 P.2d 1066, which was an action to recover for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while riding in a "tub" known as the "Sea Cruise Ride," an amusement device at a fair grounds. The facts relating to the alleged defective mechanical device are set forth in the opinion and need not be repeated here.
Lamb v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 180 Kan. 157, 300 P.2d 387, was an action to recover for injuries sustained by the sudden forward movement of a truck when it rolled down an incline. The petition, which was held sufficient under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, charged the negligent act or omission as being the failure to properly park the truck so that it would not break loose and injure plaintiff, and that it was not within his knowledge whether the injury was caused by defective equipment on the truck or the negligent and careless parking thereof.
In the Hulme, Waddle and Lamb cases, just mentioned, it will be seen that the so-called "initial fact" or "surrounding circumstances" were either pleaded or proved  as the case may be  thus bringing each within the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The same is not true of the case before us  and, for reasons heretofore stated  plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to bring it within the doctrine and the judgment is affirmed.
WERTZ, J., dissents.