Title: JOSEPH MAZZOLA v. CARL SAWYER AND WILDA SAWYER, HUSBAND AND WIFE

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JOSEPH MAZZOLA v. CARL SAWYER AND WILDA SAWYER, HUSBAND AND WIFE1985 WY 93702 P.2d 167Case Number: 84-314Decided: 07/12/1985Supreme Court of Wyoming
JOSEPH MAZZOLA, APPELLANT 
(PLAINTIFF), 

v. 

CARL SAWYER AND WILDA 
SAWYER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS).

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, GoshenCounty, John T. Langdon, 
J.

 
 
Michael E. 
Warren, Sawyer, Warren & Kautz, Torrington, for appellant.

John J. Maier, 
Torrington, for appellees.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

ROONEY, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     Plaintiff-appellant 
brought an action against defendants-appellees alleging negligence in the manner 
in which appellees stored appellees' motor home along side appellant's motor 
home in a building owned by appellees, which negligence allegedly caused a fire 
that damaged appellant's motor home. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of 
appellees after a trial to the court.

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     The storage of 
appellant's motor home was in consideration of appellant paying the gas utility 
charges for the storage building and for appellees' house during the months of 
December 1982 to May 1983 while appellees were on vacation in Arizona. The building was 
approximately 30' X 50' in size. The motor homes of appellees and appellant were 
parked side by side in the building. In November of 1982, an overhead heater in 
the northeast corner of the building caused a roof vent on top of appellant's 
motor home to melt, and thereafter appellant parked his motor home more to the 
rear of the building and away from the heater. Subsequently, the locations of 
the motor homes within the building were switched, and still later appellees 
moved their motor home forward and closer to the overhead heater to make room 
for the storage of a lawn mower. On May 11 and 12, 1983, the temperature dropped 
to around 11 degrees, activating the heater. On May 12, 1983, a fire broke out 
in the building, and both motor homes were damaged.

[¶4.]     The issues presented on 
appeal are (1) whether or not the court erred in not finding negligence on the 
part of appellees, (2) whether or not the court erred in not finding a bailment, 
and (3) whether or not the court erred in finding that appellant's insurer could 
not allocate the risk to appellees or to their insurer on the basis of an 
agreement between the parties to do so.

NEGLIGENCE

[¶5.]     The trial court found 
that appellees did not park the "motor home so close to the heater as to violate 
his duty as a reasonable man," and that there was no "forseeability, i.e. that a 
reasonably prudent person would foresee. . . . that this distance would be so 
engulfed in flame or saturated by heated air as to cause the fire in question." 
The court determined the distance between the heater and the motor home to have 
been 8'7".

[¶6.]     We have often said that 
we will not substitute our judgment on the facts for that of the fact finder if 
there is substantial evidence to support the findings made by the fact finder; 
and that on appeal we assume the evidence in favor of the successful party to be 
true, leaving out of consideration entirely the evidence of the unsuccessful 
party in conflict therewith, and giving to the evidence of the successful party 
every reasonable inference reasonably to be drawn therefrom. Distad v. Cubin, Wyo., 633 P.2d 167, 180 (1981); Barnette v. Doyle, Wyo., 622 P.2d 1349, 1362 (1981); Brittain v. Booth, 
Wyo., 601 P.2d 532, 535 (1979); Rissler & McMurry Company v. Atlantic 
Richfield Company, Wyo., 559 P.2d 25, 28 
(1977).

[¶7.]     The trial court's 
finding that the motor home was parked 8'7" from the heater was founded on 
testimony as to the size of the building, size of the motor home, the distance 
between the front of the motor home and the building wall, and the location of 
the heater in the building. The resulting conclusion that appellant had not 
carried his burden to establish that a reasonable man would foresee this 
distance to be "engulfed in flame or saturated by heated air as to cause the 
fire" is not totally against the evidence and is not manifestly wrong. Zanetti v. Zanetti, Wyo., 
689 P.2d 1116 (1984).

BAILMENT

[¶8.]     Appellant argues that 
the delivery of the motor home to appellees was a delivery in trust for a 
specific purpose. The trial court found the transaction not to be a bailment, 
commenting that since appellant removed and returned the motor home from the 
building several times during appellees' absence, there was no delivery of the 
motor home to appellees, a necessary element of a 
bailment.

[¶9.]     We need not review the 
propriety of this finding inasmuch as the appellant, himself, recognizes the 
general rule to be that a bailee is answerable for loss or injury to the 
bailor's property only when such is a result of a failure on the part of the 
bailee to use ordinary care and diligence in safeguarding it. Truck Terminal, Inc. v. Nielsen, 80 
Wyo. 223, 339 P.2d 413 (1959). Inasmuch as negligence was not here established, appellees' 
failure to use ordinary care and diligence was not established, and appellees 
would not be liable even should there be a bailment.

ALLOCATING 
RISK

[¶10.]  Similarly, the question of allocation of 
risk between the insurance carriers of appellant and appellees becomes moot when 
negligence on the part of appellees is not established. The insurance status 
with reference to the motor homes was discussed at the time appellees agreed to 
allow appellant to store his motor home in the building. Appellant acknowledged 
that:

"If there were a loss 
with no negligence, Plaintiff's [appellant's] Casualty Insurance would naturally 
pick up the bill, but if there were negligence on Defendant's [appellees'] part, 
his liability insurance would take care of the loss."

[¶11.]  Since negligence on appellees' part was 
not established, there is no longer an issue concerning allocation of 
risk.

[¶12.]  Affirmed.