Court Opinion

ID: 9576199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:21:42.405062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:23.299676
License: Public Domain

Hunter, J.
(dissenting)—I am in agreement with the-majority that under finding of fact No. VI to which no error was assigned, porcelain faucet handles, for the purpose of this appeal, are not dangerous per se. However, I believe this appeal presents the further question: whether cracked *211porcelain faucet handles constitute a latent dangerous defect under the facts of this case.
Here, Peter Sanstol, a student clerk in the respondent’s hotel and relatively close friend of the appellant, testified that in response to a complaint by the appellant of a dripping faucet, he went to the appellant’s room to inspect the same. He stated that upon close examination of the faucet he saw a crack on the underside of the handle and that he reported this crack to Mr. Courtner, the manager of the respondent’s hotel. Mr. Courtner had moved away prior to the trial without leaving a forwarding address and was, therefore, not available as a witness for either party. The trial court found, however,
“. . . That on two occasions Sanstol advised the manager of a ‘cracked faucet’ . . .” (finding of fact No. V.)
Further, in finding of fact No. VIII, the trial court found:
“ . . . in response to plaintiff’s complaint about the dripping of the faucet, Peter Sanstol saw a surface check or crack in the underside of the faucet handle; that said faucet operated in a horizontal plane; that in order to see it, Sanstol had to get down and peer up under the faucet; the court, however, does not believe nor find that at the time such claimed defect was seen by Peter Sanstol that he attached, or had reason to attach, any particular significance to it or had reason to believe that it was, because of such condition, dangerous or defective; . . . that from an examination of the handle after the break therein, the effective strength of the handle was reduced by the crack no more than one-third; that by reason thereof it required an unusual amount of force exerted upon the handle to fracture it.” (Italics mine.)
By reason of the above findings, it should be clear (1) that Sanstol made a careful examination of the faucet in question; (2) that, as a result thereof, he saw a crack (or what he thought was a crack) in the porcelain handle; (3) that he reported the cracked porcelain handle (which, in fact, later proved to be cracked) to the respondent’s manager.
The reasoning of this court in Johnston v. Nichols, 83 *212Wash. 394, 145 Pac. 417 (1915)- is sound and should be applied in the case at bar. In that case this court said:
“ . . . In the absence of a warranty or covenant to repair, there is no greater duty of inspection upon the landlord than there is upon the tenant. The law imposes no burden of diligence or active duty upon the landlord to find and disclose obscure defects or dangers. The only exception in the absence of a contract to the rule caveat emptor is where there are obscure or latent defects or dangers known to the landlord and not known to the tenant. This exception is grounded in reason and in the fundamental principles of justice. It rests upon, and is sustained by, the moral obligation of every man knowing a danger to warn the innocent or the ignorant against that which may beset or befall him in the use of property which is put into his hands for a present or prospective consideration moving to the donor, vendor, or lessor.” (Italics mine.)
The respondent may not have been under any duty to inspect the premises after the commencement of the tenancy, but assuming this to be true, the respondent’s agent Sanstol, nevertheless did, in fact, inspect the faucet in the appellant’s room, and respondent’s manager was informed of a dripping faucet and a crack in the porcelain handle. The trial court appears to have been convinced that Sanstol did not believe the condition of the faucet was dangerous or defective. This, I believe, is immaterial. Sanstol reported a cracked porcelain handle, and respondent’s manager knew or should have known that such condition constituted a dangerous latent defect, particularly under the circumstances of this case where there was a combination of a leaky faucet and a cracked porcelain handle, creating a likelihood of additional pressure being exerted on the cracked handle to shut off the leak.
Let us review briefly the testimony in the record concerning “cracked” porcelain handles in general.
Dr. R. S. Mosiman, a witness for the appellant, testified:
“Q. Are these porcelain faucet hand injuries well known to doctors? A. Oh, yes. This is a definite entity. This is something that happens quite commonly. Not as commonly as it used to when porcelain faucets were more common, but *213it is called a ‘porcelain faucet injury.’ It is a definite thing.” (Italics mine.)
Mr. T. E. Himmelman, vice president of Western Hotels, Inc., and a witness for the respondent, testified on cross-examination:
“Q. Mr. Himmelman, assume that a porcelain handle, faucet handle, had a crack in it, running underneath the handle; would you consider that to be a defective handle, or not? A. I think we would replace it. Q. You say you think? A. Yes. Q. You haven’t answered my question. . . . Q. Why would you - replace it? A. Our housekeeper and engineer would replace it because it probably wasn’t first class. Q. Would that he a safety precaution, by any chance? A. Could be.” (Italics mine.)
Mr. D. C. Haas, owner of an apartment house and a witness for the respondent, testified on cross-examination:
“A. ... I would consider a badly cracked porcelain faucet handle as an undesirable piece of equipment. Q. From what standpoint would it be? A. From the standpoint it was unsafe to leave on the fixture.” (Italics mine.)
Henry Clay Agnew, superior court judge and owner of an apartment building, a witness for the respondent, testified on cross-examination:
“Q. Have you any opinion on whether a crack in a porcelain faucet would indicate it to be unsafe or dangerous? A. No, I have no opinion on it.”
Mr. Alfred Seitz, superintendent of a heating and plumbing company, a witness for the appellant, testified:
“Q. Well, Mr. Seitz, is there any way of telling when a crack appears on a piece of porcelain, whether it is through in the material or not? A. To my knowledge, no. Q. The only way you could tell is to take the faucet and break it down? A. Possibly X-raying it, or actually breaking it to see—to see the depth of the fracture. Q. Mr. Seitz, if you had a porcelain faucet, such as we have here, with a definite crack in it, would you say it was defective? A. I would. . . . Q. Would you say it was dangerous? A. Yes, sir. That is one of the recommendations—one of the points when we suggest and recommend changing it because of the danger factor on it. Q. What is the danger factor of it?' *214A. Breakage of it, and the fact it breaks to a sharp edge, and therefore presents a certain hazard.” (Italics mine.)
Mr. Peter Lee, plumber, a witness for the appellant, testified:
“Q. Is a crack in a porcelain faucet considered dangerous or defective in the plumbing trade? A. Yes.”
It appears from the foregoing testimony that the use of a cracked porcelain faucet handle would be dangerous under the facts of this case when used in connection with a dripping faucet, and that the evidence clearly preponderates against any finding to the contrary.
The trial court appears to have placed considerable weight upon the testimony of Mr. C. W. Smith, a chemical engineer who examined the handle after it broke, concluding therefrom that Sanstol did not see a crack but only a surface check. He was not an apartment or hotel owner or manager. He had worked with porcelain materials but had no experience in examining porcelain faucet handles. He testified on cross-examination:
“Q. Have you had any other experience than you just related, other than this porcelain faucet,—any other porcelain faucets you have examined? A. I think not, no faucets. I have worked with porcelain or porcelain materials, but not faucets. . . . Q. Mr. Smith, if you had noticed a crack in this particular porcelain handle, would you consider it defective or inconsequential? A. Examining it only as one would see it on this type of thing, I would question it.was a crack or surface check, knowing what I know about the materials. Q. In other words, you are not able to see whether it is a crack or surface check? A. I know it is a crack, because once it is open we can see it is a crack, but prior this crack, I suspect, would look like the remainder of this extension, and there is no way of knowing if it is a surface check, or goes all the way through, so knowing that porcelain glazes are the weakest point of a porcelain article, I would be susceptible to thinking that was surface crazing, as often occurs.” (Italics mine.)
On further cross-examination, he testified as follows:
“Q. According to your testimony, Mr. Smith, there is no way to tell, in examining a porcelain faucet, when, you see a crack, whether that is merely surface crazing, is that cor*215rect? A. Unless an X-ray might show it up. I don’t know whether it would or not. By superficial examination, it isn’t. Q. Your only other method of determining it would be to take the faucet apart and remove the porcelain to see if the crack had—A. That would be one destructive way of finding if it was a crack: take it off, and break it open. Q. According to your testimony, there is absolutely no way of telling whether a faucet is defective? By casual inspection it would only indicate surface crazing? A. That is all it would indicate—as a surface crack.” (Italics mine.)
Mr. Smith concluded that in the instant case a break, through the porcelain would not be revealed by a visual, inspection of the faucet, prior to when it actually broke; that all that could be seen would be a surface check or chemical stain which would have no effect upon the underlying structure or strength of the porcelain.
If Mr. Smith’s testimony is carefully considered, the effect, would be to establish a standard of care that would provide complete immunity to hotel and apartment owners when sued by guests or tenants for injuries received by cracked porcelain handles breaking, because there would be no way, outside of X-raying and breaking the handles open, to determine whether they are defective. Hotel and apartment owners are not insurers of their guest’s health and safety, but on the other hand they should not be immune from liability where facts are established, as in the-case at bar.
The trial court, however, could not reach the conclusion, from Smith’s testimony, that Sanstol did not see a crack, and reconcile such a conclusion with his own finding (No. VIII) that “Peter Sanstol saw a surface check or crack in the underside of the faucet handle,” and with the further finding that the faucet handle was, in fact, cracked, (finding No. VIII)
The appellant sustained the burden of proof placed upon him. The respondent received notice of a “cracked” porcelain faucet handle and a dripping faucet through the report of its agent. Men of ordinary experience in the business in which the respondent is engaged know, or should know, that the use of cracked porcelain handles is dangerous *216under these conditions; therefore, the respondent knew or was chargeable with such knowledge. After the respondent acquired knowledge of the dangerous latent defect, it was under the duty to warn the appellant so that he could guard against injury.
The judgment should be reversed with direction to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the appellant for damages in the amount found by the court at the time of trial.
I dissent.
Mallery and Rosellini, JJ., concur with Hunter, J.