Opinion ID: 2375256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contributory negligence as a matter of law?

Text: Appellant argues that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; that he was not a novice in the business; was aware of the dangers attending overfilling of a tank; was obliged to exercise a high degree of care commensurate with the deadly and dangerous character of his product; knew that the gauge was broken and that he could not determine the contents of the tank; was in sole charge and control of the equipment and instrumentalities; that plaintiff, alone, overfilled the tank, contrary to an absolute duty imposed upon him by law not to fill the tank beyond a safe level. Appellant cites cases indicating the care to be exercised in handling such a commodity as gas; the duty of investigation and inspection when a situation suggestive of dangers appears, and refers to the rule that (t)he risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed. Appellant cites Grissom v. Handley, Mo.App., 410 S.W.2d 681, suggesting that in that case the court unequivocally spelled out that a liquefied petroleum gas company and its employees have the duty not to fill a tank beyond a safe level. The pertinent question is whether appellant's assurance that the tank was empty and appellant's direction to fill the tank justified plaintiff in doing what he did. One may not be guilty of contributory negligence in exposing his person to known and appreciated danger where there is some reason of necessity or propriety to justify him in so doing. Fletcher v. Kemp, Mo. Sup., 327 S.W.2d 178, 183. On previous occasions plaintiff had safely relied upon the representations of appellant's employees that the tank was empty. A person may rely on assurances, or representations of safety made to him by others, where, under the same or similar circumstances, an ordinarily prudent man would do so. 65A C.J.S. Negligence § 118(3), p. 47. Here the representation was that the tank was empty. [In Heldenfels v. Montgomery, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 998, a road contractor assured a machinist, who was given a hollow piston of a water pump to repair, that the piston was solid. Acting in reliance on that assurance the machinist applied heat to it and it exploded. The contractor was held liable as against the contention that the machinist had equal, if not better, means of knowing whether the piston was solid than the contractor.] Because of the broken gauge, plaintiff could not know how much LPG was in the tank. Plaintiff had no means or ability of satisfying himself other than by taking the word of appellant's employee that the tank was empty. A jury could find that plaintiff had a right to rely upon appellant's assurance on this occasion that the tank was empty, and to conclude that filling the tank to 80% of capacity would not result in an overfill but would be a safe procedure. Plaintiff, of course, was not thereby relieved of the duty of exercising care for his own safety.    [O]ne may not rely on assurances of safety where he is aware of the danger or where the danger is so obvious and imminent that an ordinarily prudent person, under the same or similar circumstances, would not do so. 65A C.J.S. Negligence § 118(3), p. 47. The act of metering 24 gallons of LPG into the tank under the circumstances of this case, however, may not be said as a matter of law to have involved an imminent danger so obvious or glaring that no reasonably prudent person exercising the degree of care required of those who handle the dangerous commodity gas would have undertaken to do the work in such a manner. Fletcher v. Kemp, supra, is instructive on this question. See also Spurlock v. Union Finance Co., 363 Mo. 62, 248 S.W.2d 578, and McDonald v. Morrison Plumbing & Sheet Metal Co., 209 Mo.App. 23, 236 S.W. 418. Appellant further argues that plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because he violated Chapter 323, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and the Rules and Regulations for Handling Liquefied Petroleum Gas promulgated thereunder by the Motor Fuel Unit of the Department of Revenue, and § 2407, Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, by undertaking to fill the tank inside a building and by failing to remain close to the transfer connection during the filling operation. These rules provide that fuel supply containers shall be charged only in the open air or in buildings especially provided for that purpose; that industrial trucks equipped with permanently mounted fuel containers shall be charged outdoors; and that At least one attendant shall remain close to the transfer connection from the time the connections are first made until they are finally disconnected during the transfer of product. Plaintiff was shown to have knowledge of these rules and of the danger involved in violating them, and appellant urges that the failure to take the safety precautions thus imposed by statute and ordinance constituted negligence per se. While ordinarily a failure to observe a duty imposed by statute or ordinance makes a prima facie case of negligence, Lochmoeller v. Kiel, Mo.App., 137 S.W.2d 625, 630, in the absence of proof of legal excuse or avoidance, [1] Ruediger v. American Bus Lines, Inc., Mo.Sup., 426 S.W.2d 4, 9, there is the additional requirement that the violation must be shown to have concurred with the negligence of the defendant and contributed to the injury as a proximate cause. 65A C.J.S. Negligence § 127, pp. 88, 89. All reasonable minds would not conclude that the infractions were the proximate cause of the injury in this case and therefore, even if arguendo plaintiff was negligent by reason of infraction of the rules, plaintiff is not, as a matter of law, barred from recovery. In order for contributory negligence to legally bar the plaintiff's recovery, it is not sufficient that plaintiff was negligent and that such negligence contributed to the cause, or was a contributing cause, of his injurya contributing cause but for which the injury would not have been sustained. The negligence of plaintiff must have been a proximate cause, that is, a `proximate cause' as the term is used in expressing a cause which may be reasonably regarded as a direct, producing or efficient cause; or as entering into and forming a part of the direct, producing or efficient cause of the injury. [Citing cases.] Stumpf v. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co., 354 Mo. 208, 189 S.W. 2d 223, 227 [7, 8]. And see Danner v. Weinreich, Mo.Sup., 323 S.W.2d 746, 750 [1]. There was evidence from which a jury could find that these several conditions obtained and events occurred preceding the injury: The tank to be filled was inside a building. The gauge on the tank was not operating. Appellant represented that the tank was empty. The tank was not empty. Plaintiff, during the filling operation, did not remain close to the transfer connection because he could not meter in 24 gallons from that point (he had to be at the meter, which was 140 feet away). An effort was made to inject 24 gallons into a tank which would not take 24 gallons, because it was already partially filled. The tank over-flowed and the vapors ignited. Plaintiff decided to attempt to rescue a person or persons he thought were in danger, and ran 140 feet toward the fire. As he arrived at the trailer the heated, volatile liquid expanded and sprayed onto plaintiff, setting him on fire. Plaintiff's acts in undertaking to fill a tank inside a building and in not staying close to the transfer point during the filling operation could reasonably be regarded as conditions obtaining at the beginning of a chain of events leading to a casualty which, although in a sense contributory to the final result, should be excluded as a proximate cause and not considered a direct, producing or efficient cause of the injury. A jury reasonably could have found that if the tank had been empty, as represented, there would have been no overflow and no fire; that there was an efficient, intervening cause following the infraction of the rules and regulations; that the proximate cause of the injury was the overflowing of the LPG from the already-too-full tank, following appellant's representation that the tank was empty. The facts and circumstances do not compel the inference that plaintiff's acts in violation of the rules and regulations were a direct, producing or efficient cause of the injury. If appellant's misrepresentation negligently misled plaintiff, the jury reasonably could have believed that appellant's negligence was not only a direct, producing or efficient cause, but the direct, producing or efficient cause of plaintiff's injury, and that the negligence of plaintiff under the circumstances was a cause which should not be reasonably regarded as a direct, producing or efficient cause for which plaintiff should be considered responsible. Stumpf v. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co., supra, 189 S.W.2d, l. c. 228 [10]. (Our emphasis.) In this connection see Bledsoe v. Northside Supply & Development Company, Mo.Sup., 429 S.W.2d 727 (decided by Division Two on July 8, 1968). The question of causal connection between plaintiff's infraction of the rules and regulations and plaintiff's injury, and the whole question of contributory negligence vel non, were properly left to the jury to determine.