Court Opinion

ID: 9538729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:40:44.687975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:07.478205
License: Public Domain

DE CONCINI, Justice
(dissenting).
I believe the trial judge was correct in directing a verdict for the defendant for the reasons expressed by him.
It is inconceivable to me to excuse the plaintiff of his own shortcomings and make the defendant pay for it. Here was the plaintiff, an experienced service-station operator, who was in that business two *49years prior to coming to Tucson. He worked at the station in question for three months before he took over the management. He began operating the station on August 1 and didn’t discover the tanks were leaking until 45 days later. His own testimony showed he was selling between 200 and 300 gallons per day, and during that period he was losing over 150 gallons per day. To say, as the majority opinion does, that because the .tanks were buried plaintiff didn’t have a chance to inspect them, is in my opinion absurd. All he had to do, was to measure the gasoline in the tanks at night and again the next morning to learn if the tanks were leaking. The measuring is a simple operation of dropping a stick in the tank, which was available for that purpose at the station, and note the measurement thereon. Then upon the next measurement, provided no gas had been pumped from the tanks, the stick would show by the gas mark whether the contents lowered or held its mark. This operation takes two minutes at the most. I believe it was the duty of the plaintiff to make such an inspection, which he had the opportunity to do, within a reasonable time. A reasonable time would be two or three days and not some 7,200 gallons later. See Schmidt-Hitchcock Contractors v. Dunning, and 8 C.J.S., Bailments, § 25, as cited in the majority opinion. See also headnotes 2 and 3 in Gaffey v. Forgione & Romano Co., 126 Me. 220, 137 A. 218.
A lessor is liable for injuries caused by faulty equipment or the installation of same after notice. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Reid, 60 Ga.App. 119, 3 S.E.2d 121. In the instant case, there was no notice.
The judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.