Court Opinion

ID: 9664733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:27:40.653192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:09.435415
License: Public Domain

STORCKMAN, Judge
(dissenting).
I find myself unable to agree that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable in the circumstances of this case. I do not understand that the doctrine creates any substantive rights or bestows a cause of action where none would exist absent the doctrine. The doctrine is a rule of evidence which permits the essential negligence to be proved by circumstantial evidence but negligence remains the basis of recovery. Harke v. Haase, 335 Mo. 1104, 75 S.W.2d 1001, 1003-1004(7, 8); Girratono v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 363 Mo. 359, 251 S.W.2d 59, 64(6); Warner v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, 363 Mo. 1082, 257 S.W.2d 75, 80 (8).
In order to make a submissible case the character of the occurrence and the circumstances in evidence must warrant an inference of negligence. Taylor v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 303 S.W.2d 608(1); Harke v. Haase, 335 Mo. 1104, 75 S.W.2d 1001, 1003-1004(7); Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U.S. 233, 33 S.Ct. 416, 418, 57 L.Ed. 815. Or as stated in Kapros v. Pierce Oil Corporation, 324 Mo. 992, 25 S. W.2d 777, 781, 78 A.L.R. 722: “From the Missouri authorities just reviewed, especially the Pointer and McGrath Cases [Pointer v. Mountain Ry. Const. Co., 269 Mo. 104, 189 S.W. 805, L.R.A.1917B, 1091; McGrath v. St. Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo. 97, 94 S.W. 872], it appears all the facts connected with each particular case must be consulted, and from them the court must be able to take judicial notice, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, that the accident prima facie could not have occurred but for negligence on the part of the defendant.” See also Russell v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., Mo.App., 245 S.W. 590, 591(1-3).
Does the evidence in this case reasonably warrant an inference that the water *601main broke due to negligence and that the negligence was that of the defendant? Can we take “judicial notice, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, that the accident could not have occurred but for negligence on the part of the defendant?” I do not think so. The essential facts are that the 6-inch cast-iron water main which broke and caused the damage was approximately four feet below the street surface and had been in place for about fifty-three years. In my opinion this set of facts does not “bespeak negligence.” As I see it, the occurrence is not such “as does not ordinarily happen if those in charge use due care.” McCloskey v. Koplar, 329 Mo. 527, 46 S.W.2d 557, 559, 92 A.L.R. 641.
The Foltis case, 287 N.Y. 108, 38 N.E.2d 455, 460(9), as well as others, concedes that the city was under no duty to examine the water pipe buried four feet under ground in the absence of some warning that the pipe had shifted or deteriorated. Further, the lapse of time, nine years in the Foltis case and fifty-three years in the present case, before the break occurred is persuasive that the break was not due to an original defect which could have bean discovered on reasonable inspection or to the manner in which the pipes were laid. Apart from the evidence in the case it is common knowledge that cast-iron water pipes underground can reasonably be expected to remain serviceable and in good condition much longer than the fifty-three years this pipe was in use.
In these circumstances I see nothing that this defendant did that might reasonably be said to have caused the break or anything it failed to do which if done would have prevented it. On the other hand, as a result of common knowledge and experience, it occurs to me that the break probably occurred as the result of independent causes, such as soil settlement or the pounding of heavy traffic on a busy city street, over which the defendant has no control and for which it could not be held liable on the theory of negligence. The evidence does not suggest anything the city could or should have done to avoid this occurrence or similar ones in the future.
Further, I doubt that a water main laid four feet under a city street is under such control and management of the city as contemplated by McCloskey v. Koplar, 329 Mo. 527, 46 S.W.2d 557, 559, so as to make the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applicable on a mere showing that the main fractured. This I deem to be the holding of Goldman v. City of Boston, 274 Mass. 329, 174 N.E. 686, 687, with which I agree.
Since the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is a part of the law of evidence, the need for invoking it has tended to diminish because of the improved discovery provisions of the new Civil Code of Missouri, V.A.M.S., § 510.010 et seq. As stated in Warner v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, 363 Mo. 1082, 257 S.W.2d 75, 80, the use' of the discovery process “in many cases should enable a plaintiff to state and prove a claim on specific negligence, although before he would have been obliged to rely upon a res ipsa loquitur inference.”
Some of the more recent cases where this court has refused to apply the doctrine are Shafer v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Mo., 295 S.W.2d 109, electrocution by contact with a fuse panel; Frazier v. Ford Motor Co., 365 Mo. 62, 276 S.W.2d 95, sudden stopping and lurching of automobile body on an assembly line; Cudney v. Midcontinent Airlines, 363 Mo. 922, 254 S.W.2d 662, a sudden lurch of an airplane; Girratono v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 363 Mo. 359, 251 S.W.2d 59, the mere skidding of an automobile; Maybach v. Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 359 Mo. 446, 222 S.W.2d 87, the mere proof of the explosion of two bottles of beer after it left the manufacturer’s possession.
I would reverse the order of the trial court granting a new trial and direct the reinstatement of the judgment for the defendant.