Title: Crabb v. Swindler, Administratrix

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

184 Kan. 501 (1959)
337 P.2d 986
In the Matter of the Estate of Kyle Talbott, Deceased. (PAUL CRABB, d/b/a Crabb Construction Company, Appellant,
v.
MARGARET SWINDLER, JUNE MOSS, RICHARD TALBOTT, and BETTY BURSON, Administrators of the estate of Kyle Talbott, deceased, Appellees.)
No. 41,260

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 11, 1959.
*502 Bill Murray, of Pratt, argued the cause, and B.V. Hampton, of Pratt, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
Richard Barrett, of Pratt, argued the cause, and George Barrett, of Pratt, was with him on the briefs for appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, J.:
This was a proceeding against the estate of a deceased plumbing contractor to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the owner of a new house, resulting from the installation of certain plumbing fixtures in a negligent, careless and unworkmanlike manner and contrary to good plumbing practices.
On July 13, 1956, the petition for allowance of demand was filed in the probate court and was thereafter transferred to the district court pursuant to G.S. 1957 Supp. 59-2402a. The administrators' demurrer to the petition and plea in abatement were sustained, and the claimant has appealed.
The petition alleged that claimant constructed and owned a new dwelling house in Pratt; that Kyle W. Talbott, doing business as K.W. Talbott Plumbing and Heating, contracted to do the plumbing work in the house which work was begun on May 1, 1955; that Kyle W. Talbott died intestate on November 21, 1955, and that defendants are the duly appointed administrators of his estate. Claimant further alleged that the plumbing work contracted for, among other things, involved the installation of lavoratories and entailed the coupling of water faucets on the pipes to the water supply that lead into the bathroom. The petition then alleged:
The petition further alleged that by reason of the poor workmanship and negligence of Talbott, his servants and employees, the coupling was improperly made, causing flooding in the house, which depreciated the market value of the house by $3,283.16. The prayer was that the petition be allowed against the estate in that amount.
The administrators filed a motion to make the petition more definite and certain by stating when Talbott completed the installation of the bathroom fixtures; the date the plumbing fixtures broke and the house was flooded, and the damage which resulted depreciating its market value.
The motion was overruled with the understanding that claimant would interline in his petition the date when he first discovered flooding and would furnish the administrators the items of damage alleged to have been sustained. The actual date of flooding was not inserted, but claimant interlined the petition to show that it was discovered in January, 1956, and that the left coupling on the lavatory in the southwest bathroom did not hold. A bill of particulars was furnished itemizing the damages alleged to have been sustained.
When the motion to make definite and certain was argued before the district court on October 4, 1956, claimant's attorney declared:
The administrators answered, admitting the contract between claimant and decedent; and alleged that claimant was guilty of contributory negligence which was the proximate cause of the damage claimed, and that the petition showed on its face the action did not accrue during the lifetime of Kyle W. Talbott and therefore the action had abated and no cause of action existed against the decedent's estate. The administrators demurred to the petition on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action against the estate of Kyle W. Talbott.
The trial court sustained the plea in abatement and the demurrer upon the ground that claimant's petition sounded in tort; that since *504 no damage had accrued at the time of Talbott's death, claimant had no cause of action against Talbott in his lifetime under the rule announced in Kitchener v. Williams, 171 Kan. 540, 236 P.2d 64, and, therefore, no cause of action survived against the decedent's estate under G.S. 1949, 60-3201.
Did a cause of action survive against the estate of the decedent? The answer to the question requires a determination whether a cause of action accrued against the decedent in his lifetime. If it did not, then, under G.S. 1949, 60-3201, no cause of action survived against his estate. The administrators contend that, since the claimant elected to proceed in tort, under Kitchener v. Williams, supra, no cause of action accrued until January, 1956, when the flooding occurred, which was subsequent to the decedent's death, hence, no cause of action survived. On the other hand, claimant asserts that his cause of action is in contract for breach of an implied warranty to install the plumbing fixtures in a reasonably skillful and workmanlike manner, and that when the warranty was breached by the faulty installation during the decedent's lifetime, a cause of action accrued which survived against his estate.
While good practices require the plaintiff's initial pleading to proceed on a single and definite theory, under modern code systems, his pleading may be held sufficient if it states a cause of action on any theory. (Cockrell v. Henderson, 81 Kan. 335, 105 Pac. 443; Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 629, 258 P.2d 317, 38 A.L.R.2d 887; 71 C.J.S., Pleading, § 92, p. 227, citing many cases including Grannell v. Wakefield, 169 Kan. 183, 217 P.2d 1059; Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. Worcester, 163 Kan. 540, 183 P.2d 947; Dellinger v. Harper County Social Welfare Board, 155 Kan. 207, 124 P.2d 513, and Lofland v. Croman, 152 Kan. 312, 103 P.2d 772.)
It is clear that if claimant has elected to proceed in tort, a cause of action did not survive against the decedent's estate. In Kitchener v. Williams, supra, we dealt extensively with the question of when a cause of action in tort accrues. It was there held that not every failure to exercise due care gives rise to a cause of action; for negligence to be actionable, a damage to the plaintiff must have resulted from the wrongful conduct of the defendant, and that a cause of action in tort does not accrue until actual damage has resulted from the alleged negligence. Applying this rule to the pleaded facts, the claimant did not sustain damage until January, 1956, following the death of the decedent, and a cause of action in tort for the negligent *505 installation of the plumbing fixtures did not accrue in the lifetime of the decedent, which survived against his estate.
Do the allegations of the petition state a breach of a contractual duty giving rise to a cause of action during the lifetime of the decedent? We think they do. The relationship of the parties was created by their contract. In such a situation, it is generally recognized that when a party binds himself by contract to do a work or perform a service, in the absence of express agreement, there is an implied agreement or warranty, which the law annexes to the contract, that he will do a workmanlike job and will use reasonable and appropriate care and skill (Kuitems v. Covell, 104 Cal. App. 2d 482, 231 P.2d 552; R. Krevolin & Co., Inc., v. Brown, 20 N.J. Super. 85, 88, 89 A.2d 255; Bellman Heating Co. v. Holland, 86 A.2d 526; Brush v. Miller (Mo. App.), 208 S.W.2d 816; Gore v. Sindelar (Ohio App.), 74 N.E.2d 414; George v. Goldman, 333 Mass. 496, 131 N.E.2d 772; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 329, p. 781; 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, § 20, p. 662).
Thus, when the decedent contracted with the claimant in May, 1955, to install the plumbing fixtures there was an implied warranty that it would be done with reasonable and appropriate care and skill and in conformity with good plumbing practices. A breach of that warranty occurred, according to the allegations of the petition, when the decedent installed the bathroom plumbing fixtures in a negligent, careless and unworkmanlike manner by reason of the fact that the copper supply was too short to seat properly into the elbow so that the coupling did not hold, but leaked water and flooded the house. A breach of an implied warranty to use reasonable and appropriate care and skill, that is, to do a workmanlike job, usually results from the negligence or failure to use due care and skill in performing the particular work (Nichols v. Nold, supra, 38 A.L.R.2d 887.) Hence, the tortious or negligent acts alleged may be considered as allegations of the breach of the implied warranty. In K.P. Rly. Co. v. Kunkel, 17 Kan. 145, Mr. Justice Brewer said:
In Provident Loan Trust Co. v. Wolcott, 5 Kan. App. 473, 47 Pac. 8, the action was against a bonded abstractor who, it was alleged, compiled an abstract upon certain lands in which plaintiff was damaged by reason of "incompleteness, error and imperfection of said abstract." In the opinion it was said:
In Pomeroy on Code Remedies, 5th ed., § 464, it is said:
The nature of the cause of action must be determined from the pleadings (Dougherty v. Norlin, 147 Kan. 565, 569, 78 P.2d 65, and cases cited). In construing a pleading, it has often been held by this court that where doubt exists as to whether the action is based on tort or on quasi or implied contract, words appropriate to an action for tort will be disregarded and the petition will be interpreted as counting in contract. (Kipp v. Carlson, 148 Kan. 657, 661, 84 P.2d 899; Dougherty v. Norlin, supra, p. 569, and cases cited.) See, also, Challis v. Hartloff, 136 Kan. 823, 18 P.2d 199. When the allegations of the petition, including all inferences to which they are entitled, are fairly considered, we think they state a cause of action for breach of implied warranty that the work contracted for would be done in a careful and workmanlike manner and in accordance with good plumbing practices. Claimant was not required to expressly allege an implied warranty since the law annexes it to the contract pleaded, and the facts alleged show a breach thereof. Nor do we think counsel's statement to the effect that the case was based on whether or not the decedent was "negligent" may be considered as an admission or binding election upon claimant to proceed in tort. That statement was not inconsistent with the allegations of a breach of an implied warranty. As we have seen, the tortious acts alleged: that the work was done negligently, carelessly, improperly and contrary to good plumbing practices, are allegations of the manner of the breach of the implied warranty which was the sole cause of the injury.
When did the cause of action for the alleged breach of the implied warranty accrue? Although it is not alleged when the contract was completed, the record indicates the installation was completed during the decedent's lifetime. Where there is a contractual relationship between the parties, the plaintiff's cause of action accrues when the contract or agreement is breached. (Regier v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 139 Kan. 177, 181, 182, 30 P.2d 136; Dougherty v. Norlin, supra; Rex v. Warner, 183 Kan. 763, 769, 770, 332 P.2d 572.) See, also, Rucker v. Hagar, et al., 117 Kan. 76, 230 Pac. 70.
In 1 Am. Jur., Actions, § 62, p. 453, the rule is stated as follows:
*508 Since it is the breach of a contractual duty  here, an implied warranty  which gives rise to the cause of action, claimant could have proceeded immediately following that breach whether or not actual damage had resulted, and would have been entitled to recover nominal damages, if nothing more (12 Am. Jur., Contracts, § 388, p. 965; 25 C.J.S., Damages, § 9, p. 466, 467). However, if he sustains actual damage, such as is here alleged, the measure of damage is such as are the natural, direct and proximate result of the breach (Challis v. Hartloff, supra; Moffet v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 173 Kan. 52, 244 P.2d 228; Billups v. American Surety Co., 173 Kan. 646, 649, 251 P.2d 237; 25 C.J.S., Damages, § 24, p. 481-483).
Summarizing what has been heretofore discussed, we conclude that the allegations of claimant's petition state a cause of action for a breach of a contractual duty, that is, the breach of an implied warranty to use reasonable and appropriate care and skill, or to do a workmanlike job; that the cause of action for that breach accrued when the alleged faulty installation was completed, and that the claimant may recover damages therefor which are the natural, direct and proximate result of the breach.
In view of the foregoing, the district court erred in sustaining the plea in abatement and the demurrer to claimant's petition, and that order is reversed.
It is so ordered.
PRICE, J., dissents.