Court Opinion

ID: 9794986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:15:29.154122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:48.451963
License: Public Domain

WHITE, J., Dissenting.
I dissent,-except as to respondent Owl Drug Company. As was said in Arundell v. American Oil Fields Co., 31 Cal. App. 218, 235 [160 Pac. 159], negligence, like any other fact, may be inferred from a preponderance of the evidence, whether it be circumstantial or direct, and the plaintiff is not required to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to me that the conduct of the general contractor, the subcontractor and the latter’s agent and employee in permitting and doing welding in a downtown building situated in the heart of a metropolitan city under the conditions shown by the record in this ease, clearly constitutes negligence, for after all, negligence is but the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, protection and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. And certainly the *44circumstances as reflected in the main opinion in the instant case demanded that precautions be taken against fire, when, as the record reveals, the heat and sparks from the welding apparatus were liable to ignite the flimsy paper attached to the false ceiling.
True, there was no witness who could testify at the trial that a particular spark from, or the heat produced by, the welding apparatus started the fire, but since no plausible explanation was offered for the origin of the fire, and having in mind that it is not necessary in the trial of a civil case that the circumstances should establish the negligence of the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury with such absolute certainty as to exclude every other conclusion, it seems to me irrefutable that the only conclusion to be drawn is that the conduct of the parties who were responsible for allowing this highly dangerous welding to be done without taking precautions to prevent the ignition of the inflammable material in proximity to it and to prevent injury to customers in the store, was negligence. As was said in Orander v. Stafford, 98 W. Va. 499 [127 S. E. 330, 42 A. L. R. 780, 782], “The general rule is that persons in the lawful use of fire must exercise ordinary care to prevent it from injuring others. What is ordinary care and prudence depends on the circumstances of the particular case. The greater the danger of communicating fire to the property of others, the more the precautions and the greater the vigilance necessary to constitute such care. Reasonable care and negligence are relative terms, and depend upon the circumstances and exigencies of the particular case. The greater the danger to others from failure to exercise care, the greater is the degree of care required . . . An ordinary oil stove might not be considered dangerous when used in a residence, but no one would consider it a safe appliance for heating a barn stored with hay, fodder and other dry and very combustible materials.” By the same token, welding apparatus might not be considered dangerous when in operation upon a public street or in the open air, but certainly no one is warranted in permitting such operations under the circumstances present in the instant case.
As to defendant Owl Drug Company, while it may be that as operator of the business conducted in the building it should have known of the dangers attendant upon the hazardous work being done therein, yet I am inclined to the belief that it should be exonerated because there is no claim that it did *45not use reasonable care and prudence in the selection of a general contractor to do the work, or if the Owl Realty Company, as owner of the building, selected such general contractor, that it also did not use reasonable care therein.
As to the other defendants, it seems to me that in view of their negligence in doing work fraught with danger of fire under the circumstances shown, they are not entitled to be exonerated of negligence, and the judgment in their favor should not be permitted to stand.
A petition for a rehearing was denied on January 13, 1941. White, J., voted for a rehearing.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied on February 13, 1941. Traynor, J., voted for a hearing.