Opinion ID: 1215347
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Plaintiff's Conduct

Text: In view of our decision as to Chudnow, we turn to its claim that the trial court correctly ruled that Featherall was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. [] Defendant argues that Featherall, an experienced mechanic, acted unreasonably in the following particulars. Contrary to usual custom, he turned on the CO2 tank valve without determining whether the adjusting screws were set in an off position. He failed to ascertain that locknuts, which were readily available in the work area, were in place on the screws. He failed to notice that the adjusting screw had been turned all the way in. He did not promptly close the CO2 valve when the gauges abruptly registered. He failed quickly to activate manually the pressure release valve when he knew or should have known the system was overpressurized. We do not agree that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff's conduct contributed to his injury. Critical to our determination of this issue is the testimony, first, that on the day of the accident Featherall was unaware that full source pressure would pass through a regulator of this type which lacked a locknut and, second, that he was unaware that the locknut served a safety function. At the time, McGee, positioned to control the regulator, had manipulated the adjusting screw. Plaintiff merely moved to the CO2 tank, turned it on, observed the gauges, stepped back to the work bench, and a few seconds later knelt over the syrup tank, perhaps trying to manually release the pressure valve on the lid. Given the testimony that plaintiff did not know of the safety purpose of the nut or of the dangerous condition caused by its absence, we think reasonable minds can differ whether plaintiff failed to act properly and promptly and whether such failure was a cause of his injury. Thus, we think the trial court erred in finding that as a matter of law plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. For these reasons, the order appealed from will be affirmed as to Firestone and Cornelius. It will be reversed as to Chudnow and the case remanded for a new trial as to that defendant only on the issues of negligent failure to warn, contributory negligence, causation and damages. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.