Opinion ID: 1641741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Underlying Tort Action

Text: In his petition filed in January 1988 in the underlying case, Kenneth Smith alleged that he was assisting [his grandfather] in the repair of a rider lawn mower when the carburetor caught on fire. This allegation contrasted with the grandfather's statement that, referring to his grandson, he had to tune it [the rebuilt motor] up and he was putting a new motor in at the time of the accident, and with Kenneth's own statement that I put the motor together and ... I had the motor on the lawn mower but I didn't have it bolted down and I went to start it and it popped like it was going to start and then when I went to start it again, it caught on fire.... Moreover, in answer to the question whether his grandfather was directing his putting this motor on the lawn mower or telling you how to do it, Kenneth had stated [n]o I knew how to do it. The petition further alleged that while Kenneth Smith was attempting to put the small fire out with a burlap sack, [his grandfather] negligently and carelessly dropped the lawn mower gas tank and [t]he gasoline in the tank splashed out and on to Kenneth. However, neither Kenneth nor his grandfather in their recorded statements had ever mentioned the grandfather's holding the gas tank or dropping it onto the fire. Indeed, as noted above, Kenneth had volunteered that probably he had knocked the tank and everything off and that is when the gas flew up on me. Pretrial depositions by Kenneth Smith and his grandfather, the only two witnesses to the accident, presented versions much more favorable to Kenneth's recovery against his grandfather's insurer than their original statements. Kenneth testified that I got a feed sack, when I hit when I hit the carburetor to put the fire out, either he [the grandfather] dropped the tank or I knocked it out of his hand, I don't know which ... (emphasis added). In his deposition, [4] the grandfather testified that while Kenneth was attempting to douse the carburetor fire with a burlap sack, the grandfather's hands and shirt caught on fire, and he either dropped the tank or threw it away from him, splashing gasoline onto Kenneth. Prior to trial, Kenneth Smith's attorney offered several times to settle the case for the policy limits of $25,000, but the insurer declined the offer. Throughout the pretrial preparation, the insurer's attorney continued to advise that the claim was defensible, even though Kenneth and his grandfather had flavored their earlier statements with more favorable subsequent versions. At trial, the grandfather was unable to testify because of a terminal illness. Kenneth Smith testified at trial that after he placed the unbolted motor on the mower chassis with the motor connected to the gas tank, he looked for a place to bolt the tank to the chassis, but his grandfather instructed him to proceed with his attempt to start the motor while the grandfather held the tank in his hands. He (Kenneth) filled the tank with gasoline and attempted unsuccessfully to start the motor, removed the top and adjusted the points, and then pulled the cord again. On the second pull, the motor backfired, and the carburetor caught on fire. He and his grandfather remained calm, according to Kenneth's testimony (although the grandfather was holding the fuel tank connected by hose to the burning engine), because the fire was small. He then placed the burlap sack over the fire which suddenly grew larger. Kenneth asserted, in contrast to earlier deposition testimony, that he now knew he did not knock the fuel tank out of his grandfather's hands. On cross-examination, Kenneth Smith admitted his previous statements were not that he had placed the burlap sack over the fire, but rather that he had hit the carburetor with the sack. He also admitted previous testimony that he did not know how the fuel tank left his grandfather's hands and that he had stated either he knocked the tank from his grandfather's hands or his grandfather dropped the tank onto the burning carburetor. The jury allocated forty percent of the fault in the case to Kenneth Smith and sixty percent to his grandfather. The judgment, in accordance with the fault allocation and the amount of damages found by the jury, awarded Kenneth a judgment of $25,000 in principal against his grandfather and the insurer, and an excess judgment of $30,363.62 in principal against his grandfather. The insurer's attorney notified the insured of his right to appeal through the insurer's attorneys, but stated that the insurer would not appeal its portion of the judgment. The insurer's attorney also discussed with Kenneth Smith's attorney the possibility of post-judgment settlement for the policy limits, but Kenneth's attorney made no such offer. [5]