Case Title: Nichols v. Nold

Citation: 174 Kan. 613, 258 P.2d 317

Docket Number: 38,951, 38,959

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1953-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
174 Kan. 613 (1953)
258 P.2d 317
JUDY ANN NICHOLS, a Minor, by FRANKIE NICHOLS, Her Next Friend, Natural Guardian and Mother, Appellee,
v.
ED E. NOLD, an Individual, doing business as Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company; DAVE ELSEY, an Individual, doing business as Mission-Orange Bottling Company, and PHIL D. WHITEMAN, an Individual, doing business as Phil's Market, Appellants.
Nos. 38,951 and 38,959

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 6, 1953.
C.E. Vance, of Garden City, argued the cause, and A.M. Fleming, Bert J. Vance, and C.R. Hope, Jr., all of Garden City, were with him on the briefs for the appellant, Ed E. Nold.
Geo. R. Gould, of Dodge City, argued the cause, and George R. Gould, Jr., of Dodge City, was with him on the briefs for the appellant, Dave Elsey.
James W. Wallace, of Scott City, argued the cause, and D.B. Lang, of Scott City, was with him on the briefs for the appellant, Phil D. Whiteman.
Payne H. Ratner, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Ora D. McClellan, Louise Mattox, Payne H. Ratner, Jr., Gerald L. Michaud, Russell Cranmer, Dale B. Stinson, Jr., and Starr Calvert, Jr., all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARVEY, C.J.:
This was an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of defendants. The defendants have appealed from orders of the court overruling their respective demurrers to plaintiff's third amended petition.
The petition in question may be summarized as follows: The plaintiff and her mother, as next friend, reside in Scott City. The defendant, Ed E. Nold, resides in Dodge City, and under the name *614 of the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company is in the business of manufacturing and selling various kinds of bottled beverages, including "Pepsi-Cola," which is manufactured and bottled by him at his plant in Dodge City. The bottles containing said beverages are charged with carbon dioxide or carbonic acid gas. The Pepsi-Cola is commonly known and referred to as a soft drink and is advertised and held forth to the public by defendant under the trade-mark "Pepsi-Cola" as a refreshing, sparkling and enjoyable beverage, which is sold and delivered by said defendants either individually or through distributing agents to various cafes, restaurants, lunch stands, grocery stores and private homes throughout the cities of Dodge City, Garden City, Scott City and the surrounding towns and territory; that the defendant, Dave Elsey, doing business as the Mission-Orange Bottling Company of Garden City, handles, transports and distributes quantities of Pepsi-Cola products in the above mentioned territory and has acquired from the defendant Nold quantities of bottles of Pepsi-Cola for distribution throughout the territory mentioned and has and does handle, transport and distribute the same to the defendant, Phil D. Whiteman, doing business as Phil's Market at Scott City; that the defendant Whiteman receives, stores, handles, displays, offers for sale and sells to ultimate consumers; that on May 24, 1951, Whiteman sold to plaintiff's mother, who paid the necessary consideration therefor, some bottles of Pepsi-Cola which she took to her home; that thereafter, on the same day, plaintiff, who was going in an automobile to stay all night with a neighbor girl, took two of the bottles so purchased, and as she entered the automobile laid them on a quilt covering the front seat, and as she was bending over the bottles one of the bottles of Pepsi-Cola exploded in plaintiff's face, with the result that a particle or particles of glass from the exploded bottle struck and lacerated her nose and entered and punctured her left eyeball. Plaintiff alleged that at all times material, from the time the bottle of Pepsi-Cola was removed from Phil's Market, where it was sold to her by defendant Whiteman, until the bottle exploded in her face, it had been handled carefully, and that the explosion of the bottle of Pepsi-Cola was not caused by or due to any fault, negligence or improper handling of the same on the part of plaintiff. It was further alleged:
It was further alleged (Paragraph 7):
The remainder of the petition was devoted to a description of plaintiff's injuries and treatment and the prayer for relief.
There was a second cause of action in which plaintiff made all of the allegations of her first cause of action, except paragraph 7, a part by reference, and further alleged:
Counsel for the respective defendants in their briefs in this court present as the principal question for our determination the contention that so far as the action is predicated upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur it cannot be applied because there are three defendants; that the doctrine does not lie where there are plural defendants. The point is not well taken. It is true the doctrine is applied in many *616 cases where there is but one defendant and the rule of its application requires that he be in exclusive possession or control of the thing which is alleged to cause the injury. But the rule is not limited to that. In 45 C.J. 1216 it is said:
This was a case of plural defendants. Apparently plaintiff recovered a judgment against all of them. The manufacturer of the beverage alone appealed and contended the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to it for the reason that it was not in control at the time of the injury. This contention was denied and the judgment was affirmed.
In 65 C.J.S. 1014, it is said:
In Loch v. Confair, Appellant, 372 Pa. 212, 93 A.2d 451 (decided January 5, 1953), the facts were plaintiff and his wife were shopping in an A. & P. super-market; that when the husband was picking up two bottles of ginger ale, one in each hand, from the bottom shelf of a soft drink display, the bottle in his right hand burst and a piece of glass struck and cut the wife, resulting in a serious injury. Suit for damages was brought against the A. & P. Company and the Confair's Beverage Company, which had bottled the ale. The trial court entered a nonsuit against the A. & P. Company and gave a binding instruction to the jury to find for the beverage company. The court en banc took off the nonsuit and awarded plaintiff a new trial as to the beverage company, from which it appealed, contending that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable to it because it did not have exclusive possession of the bottle at the time it burst. This contention was denied. The reasoning of Chief Justice Horace Stern, who wrote the opinion for the court, seems so applicable to the case before us that we feel justified in quoting it at length:
In Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal. 2d 486, 154 P.2d 687, plaintiff had consulted a doctor Tilley, who diagnosed his ailment as appendicitis *618 and made arrangements for an appendectomy to be performed by Doctor Spangard at a hospital owned and managed by Doctor Swift. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital, given an anesthetic by another doctor and the operation was performed, with one or more nurses in attendance. When he was awakened from the anesthetic he felt a sharp pain about half way between the neck and the point of the right shoulder. He complained to the nurse and the doctor who gave him diathermy treatments while in the hospital. The pain in the arm continued, grew worse, developed paralysis and atrophy of the muscles about the shoulder. He sued each of the doctors, the nurse and the hospital predicating the action upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The trial court entered a judgment of nonsuit as to all defendants and plaintiff appealed. The supreme court reversed in an opinion by Gibson, C.J. In the opinion it was said:
The judgment of the trial court was reversed. Upon a trial later judgment was rendered for plaintiff as against each of the defendants. This judgment was affirmed upon appeal. (See, Ybarra v. Spangard, 93 Cal. App. 2d 43, 208 P.2d 445.)
This case has been cited and followed in a large number of cases, not only in California but in other states, as shown by the Pacific Citator.
In Schroeder v. City & County Savings Bank, Albany, 293 N.Y. 370, 57 N.E.2d 57, plaintiff was injured when, at the request of police, he was aiding to make secure a barricade which had been constructed for repairs to the bank building and which had collapsed. He sued the bank, two construction companies, and others for damages. The pertinent portion of the opinion reads:
The question of plural defendants in an action predicated on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not altogether new in this state. In Woods v. Kansas City, K.V. Rld. Co., 134 Kan. 755, 8 P.2d 404, the defendants were two railroad companies. In Ratliffe v. Wesley Hospital, 135 Kan. 306, 10 P.2d 859, the defendants were a hospital and a nurse. In Starks Food Markets, Inc., v. El Dorado Refining Co., 156 Kan. 577, 134 P.2d 1102, there were numerous defendants. *620 Although this court directed demurrers to the petitions to be sustained it was not for that reason. In Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 219 P.2d 673, there were four defendants. In that case the point was specifically urged by counsel for defendants and was determined adversely to them. There is no reason to limit the number of defendants to one in a case where the circumstances pleaded disclose that two or more may be liable.
Counsel for the appellants Nold and Elsey argue that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot apply to them because they were not in "control" of the bottle of Pepsi-Cola at the time it exploded, and cite cases holding that one of the essentials of the doctrine is that defendant be in the exclusive control at the time of the accident. Those statements were made in cases in which the circumstances disclosed that the negligence, if any, must have occurred at the time of the accident. The real test is whether defendants were in control at the time of the negligent act or omission which either at that time or later produced the accident. The fact that plaintiff did not know which one of the defendants was guilty of the negligence which was the cause of the accident, or when or where it took place, was the reason for naming all of them as parties defendant.
The second cause of action is predicated upon the alleged breach of an implied warranty that the bottle of Pepsi-Cola had been "so manufactured, bottled, handled, and sold in such manner as not to be inherently or imminently dangerous." Counsel for appellants construe this allegation as not being an attempt to claim that the contents of the bottle were unwholesome, and cite Parks v. Pie Co., 93 Kan. 334, 144 Pac. 202, and other cases which pertain only to unwholesome food. We think the allegation in the petition is not limited to the unwholesomeness of the contents, but that the allegation pertains to the bottle as well as the contents. It is true the question of the wholesomeness of Pepsi-Cola, generally speaking, is not involved, but the particular bottle that exploded and its contents are both involved. We are not impressed with the suggestion that if plaintiff knew the bottle was charged with gas that no recovery can be allowed. Perhaps all the plaintiff knew about it was that the contents were a refreshing drink. Neither are we greatly concerned about the privity of contract. Each of these defendants intended the bottle of Pepsi-Cola to be sold, and it was alleged in the petition that it was sold and the consideration paid therefor.
*621 Counsel for the appellant Whiteman contend that the second cause of action is predicated upon contract, and argue that it is improper to join such a cause of action with one for tort, as alleged in the first cause of action, citing Burks v. Aldridge, 154 Kan. 731, 121 P.2d 276, and Frier v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co., 173 Kan. 733, 252 P.2d 850. Neither of these cases is helpful to appellant. In the Burks case plaintiff sued a highway contractor for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the contractor in constructing a highway, and joined as a defendant the surety on the contractor's bond. This court held that was improper for the reason that the bond in question was an indemnity bond as distinct from a liability bond.
In the Frier case the plaintiff sued the manufacturer and distributor of a washing compound, the use of which she alleged caused injury to her hands. Her testimony disclosed she used for several months the compound after she learned that it irritated and otherwise injured her hands. The other witnesses she called testified that their hands had been irritated by the compound, but they had ceased its use on discovering that fact. At the close of the evidence, and when the case was being submitted to the court on its merits, the question was raised whether the case was being prosecuted on negligence, in which plaintiff might be barred by her own conduct respecting the use of the washing compound, or upon contract. Counsel for plaintiff stated they were proceeding upon contract, express and implied. The court expressed the view that there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and either of the defendants. Attorneys for the plaintiff concurred in that view. Thereupon the trial court rendered judgment for defendants. The trial court was justified in its ruling based upon this concession. Whether counsel for plaintiff went too far in conceding there was no privity of contract between the parties was not suggested in the record nor discussed in the opinion. There is substantial authority to the contrary, which naturally was not referred to in the opinion. The only point upon which the case can be relied upon as an authority is that under some circumstances the plaintiff in such a case, after all the evidence is in, may be called upon to make an election as to whether he is proceeding upon negligence or contract.
The authorities make it clear that an implied warranty does not necessarily involve a contract. In A.L.I., Rest., Security, p. 234, § 82j, the term is defined as follows:
Black's Law Dictionary defines implied warranty as "A warranty raised by the law as an inference from the acts of the parties or the circumstances of the transaction," giving illustrations.
In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 3429, as pertains to sales, it is said:
In 77 C.J.S. 1155, the term is defined as follows:
5 Williston on Contracts, § 1505, reads:
"Warranty may, but need not, be based on contract.
In Pollock on the Law of Torts, 15th Ed., 422, it was said:
On page 417 of Pollock it is also said:
This thought is not new. In 2 Wendell's Blackstone 443, after stating agreements and contracts, the author says:
And in volume 3, page 159, after speaking of express contract, the author says:
And at page 162 it is said:
The same doctrine permeates the opinion in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 390, 111 N.E. 1050. After stating the facts and discussing some cases the court used this language:
In Schuler v. Union News Co., 295 Mass. 350, 4 N.E.2d 465, the action was for death alleged to have been caused from poisoning by eating a turkey sandwich at defendant's restaurant. The petition was in three counts. The first was brought in tort for negligently causing death. The second count was for negligence resulting in conscious suffering, which was held unimportant. The third count was upon an implied warranty that the turkey sandwich was fit for food. On the first count the trial court directed a verdict for defendant, to which plaintiff excepted, and on the third count plaintiff recovered a verdict of $3,500, to which defendant excepted. The supreme judicial court of Massachusetts sustained plaintiff's exceptions and overruled defendant's exceptions. In the opinion the court said (p. 352):
In the late case of Mahoney v. Shaker Square Beverages (Ohio), 102 N.E.2d 281, an action for damages resulting from the explosion of a bottle of ale, plaintiff's case was based upon a claim of implied warranty. Defendant demurred on the ground that no cause of action was stated. There was much discussion in the opinion and citation of authorities. In the opinion the court said (p. 288):
In Santa Maria Water Con. & Imp. Dist. v. Towery Equip. Co. (Tex. App.), it was held (241 S.W.2d 755):
In Int'n'l Ptg. Pres'm'n & Assts. Union v. Smith, 145 Tex. 399, 198 S.W.2d 729, 730, it was held:
In Buck v. Jones Bakery, 160 Misc. 101, 289 N.Y.S. 386, it was held:
In Warren v. Putnam, 263 App. Div. 474, 33 N.Y.S.2d 635, it was held:
In Leoni v. Delany (Cal.), 179 P.2d 820, it was held:
In Cash Crops Cooperative v. Minnesota Valley C. Co., 257 Wis. 619, 44 N.W.2d 563, in par. 2 of N.W. Syl., it was held:
In Kniess v. Armour & Co., 134 O.S. 432, 441, 17 N.E.2d 734, 119 A.L.R. 1348, plaintiff alleged that he purchased pork from the grocer, which he had purchased from Armour & Co., which was infected with parasites peculiar to swine, which he ate and became ill. Most of the opinion deals with the question of the removal of the action to the federal court by Armour & Co. The court sustained Armour & Co.'s contention that the case should be removed, and said:
In Davis v. Van Camp Pkg. Co., 189 Iowa 775, 176 N.W. 382, it was held:
In Day v. Grand Union Company and The F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 304 N.Y. 821, 109 N.E.2d 609, a customer brought an action against the operator of a self-service store and brewing company to recover for injuries sustained by the customer in a bottle of beer, which exploded as the customer picked it off the counter of self-service grocery store. The trial court dismissed the complaint at the close of plaintiff's evidence. The appellate division, 113 N.Y.S.2d 436, reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, holding the evidence established a prima facie case against the storekeeper. He appealed to the court of appeals and contended there was no evidence of his negligence and that the facts did not establish a prima facie case against him and that there was no breach of implied warranty of merchantable quality of the bottle of beer, as neither a sale nor a contract of sale had been made. The decision of the court of appeals reads:
In K.P. Rly. Co. v. Kunkel, 17 Kan. 145, in which plaintiff recovered a judgment against the railway company for personal injuries, one of the questions was whether the action was in tort, in which case it was barred by the statute of limitations pertaining to tort actions, or whether it was in contract and within the statute of limitations pertaining to actions on contract. In syllabus 3 the court said:
In the opinion (p. 166) the court (Justice Brewer speaking), used this language:
In 1 C.J.S. 1098, § 44, Contract and Tort, the black letter statement reads:
The third paragraph of the discussion under the section embodies as a part of the text the language used by Justice Brewer in the Kunkel case (17 Kan. 145), as follows:
While the Kunkel case has been cited many times, as shown by our Citator, we find it cited only twice on this point in our own *628 Reports. In Kipp v. Carlson, 148 Kan. 657, 84 P.2d 899, on page 660, we find the following:
The court continued:
The case is again cited in La Harpe Fuel Co. v. City of Iola, 152 Kan. 445, 448, 105 P.2d 900. In that case plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant city and defendant agreed to purchase a certain quantity of gas for a period of five years. It was alleged the defendant failed and neglected to take the amount it agreed to take and the action *629 was to recover damages for failure to do so. Beginning at page 447, it was said:
The case is also cited in annotation 20 A.L.R. 2nd 338, in an annotation on Passenger's Action  Limitation of time. Also, in 157 A.L.R. 782 in an annotation on Injury to Person  Action ex contractu.
In 71 C.J.S. 227, Pleading, § 92, it is said:
Turning to our own cases we note the case of Malone v. Jones, 91 Kan. 815, 139 Pac. 387, and the opinion denying rehearing, 92 Kan. 708, 142 Pac. 274. This was an action for damages from eating tainted meat. From the reading of the opinion it appears that this was brought simply as an action for damages for serving meat not suitable for human consumption.
In the case of Parks v. Pie Co., 93 Kan. 334, 144 Pac. 202, the opinion discloses that the action was predicated upon the negligence of defendant in the manufacture and in the method of handling the pie, which it sold to a retail dealer, who sold it to plaintiff, who became ill from eating it. The decision was apparently placed on the doctrine of an implied warranty. Syllabus 1 reads:
In Stanfield v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 143 Kan. 117, 53 P.2d 878, the petition is not available for consideration, but the two pertinent paragraphs of the syllabus read:
The opinion cites and comments on a number of cases.
In Swengel v. F. & E. Wholesale Grocery Co., 147 Kan. 555, 77 P.2d 930, the petition clearly discloses that plaintiff relied both upon negligence and upon implied warranty. The pertinent paragraphs of the syllabus read as follows:
In Bradley v. Conway Springs Bottling Co., 154 Kan. 282, 118 P.2d 601, the syllabus reads:
The case was predicated on negligence. There had been a trial by jury, which was unable to agree. Defendant appealed, contending its demurrer to plaintiff's evidence should have been sustained.
Under our own cases it would seem that a plaintiff may rely upon negligence alone or upon implied warranty, or may plead negligence and recover on implied warranty; or, if he pleads both, he may waive tort and recover on implied warranty.
From the petition it is certain plaintiff received a severe injury without fault of her own. If the proper parties are made defendants the court should not be too particular about the theory upon which she recovers. The petition should be considered as a whole. In fact, the so-called second cause of action makes all of the first cause of action, except the seventh paragraph, a part of it by reference. The seventh paragraph of the first cause of action is the one that specifically pleads the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The second paragraph of the second cause of action is the one that pleads a breach of implied warranty. Since the breach of an implied warranty *631 usually results from negligence of defendants or some of them, we see no detriment resulting to defendants from the fact that plaintiff pleads negligence upon which she relies in paragraph seven of the first cause of action. This is particularly true in view of the fact that plaintiff may waive the tort pleaded and rely alone upon violation of the implied warranty, as held in Swengel v. F. & E. Wholesale Grocery Co., supra.
The result is that the pleading of the second cause of action does not render the petition demurrable. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
SMITH, J., not participating.
WEDELL, J., (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
Limitations of time and other duties preclude an extended treatment of questions involved.
This action was framed in two counts. The first was based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. It sounds in negligence, in tort. The second count was based on breach of implied warranty. It sounds in contract.
I would have difficulty sustaining the first count on the basis of some of our past decisions involving the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and I shall not endeavor to do so. It has been and now is my view that we have applied the doctrine too narrowly in some of our cases. Although I doubt the soundness of parts of some of the opinions from other jurisdictions cited in the opinion I concur in the result reached by the court on the first cause of action.
The second count, as stated, is based on implied warranty, contract. A warranty is a contract. I cannot agree that count can be tortured into an action in tort by alleging a "negligent breach of warranty." Whether the contract was breached as a result of negligence or deliberately is wholly immaterial insofar as the fundamental nature of the cause of action is concerned. It remained a cause of action to recover damages for breach of warranty. That plaintiff could waive the tort in an action such as this and sue on "implied warranty" has been definitely established (Swengel v. F. & E. Wholesale Grocery Co., 147 Kan. 555, 77 P.2d 930) but in my opinion she could not transform the contract action into a tort action. Moreover, she had already sued on tort in the first count.
I have no doubt the demurrers on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action on contract and tort should have been sustained. *632 G.S. 1949, 60-705 expressly authorizes the challenging of a petition by demurrer for improper joinder of causes of action where the misjoinder appears on the face of the petition. See, also, G.S. 1949, 60-601, on joinder of causes of action. It is unnecessary to extend the opinion with a long list of cases holding actions on contract and tort are distinctly inconsistent and may not be joined. See the numerous cases on the subject listed under the last two statutes cited. In addition thereto see, also, the recent case of Frier v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co., 173 Kan. 733, 735, 252 P.2d 850, which was an action against a manufacturer and the distributor of "Tide" to recover damages for injuries to a dishwasher's hands resulting from the use of the product. The trial court there required plaintiff to elect whether she was suing "on a contract of warranty or upon negligence." Both causes of action, as here, grew out of the same transaction. We held the ruling was proper and said, "The theories and bases of recovery are distinct and conflicting," and referred to Burks v. Aldridge, 154 Kan. 731, 121 P.2d 276, and authorities there cited.
It is impossible for me to conceive of a case more directly in point on the question of misjoinder of actions on contract and tort than the Frier case, supra. To be sure the question there arose on a motion to elect after evidence was introduced but manifestly that does not change the question involved.
The ruling on a demurrer to a petition for improper joinder of causes of action is an appealable order and is expressly made so in order that a plaintiff may be compelled to frame properly, before the commencement of the trial, the issues which may be tried together. To hold otherwise is to nullify the statute making the ruling on demurrer appealable. It readily is conceded the practice in the various states differs. We are here concerned only with our own civil code and the construction we have placed thereon.
It also is well to observe that under the pleadings as now framed it would be entirely possible for a jury to render a verdict against one defendant on contract and against the others on tort. I do not believe that is permissible under the provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-601, and the cases cited thereunder.