Court Opinion

ID: 9617257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:53:47.586592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:56.717704
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Since I am of the opinion that the majority opinion herein is completely erroneous, I feel compelled to express my view of the case.
In the first place, defendants’ conten ■ tion that there was no primary negligence shown appears to me to be well taken.
Plaintiff’s petition alleged in substance that on and prior to December 1, 1947, he was employed by defendants Bates and Long in and around their business of operating an airport south of Antlers, Oklahoma, and was permitted to and did assist in the fueling of planes; that defendant Magnolia Petroleum Co. owned and leased to the other defendants a gasoline tank and pump with hose which was maintained in such airport for the purpose of storing gasoline and refueling airplanes; that such gasoline tank or the pump or hose line thereof, or some part of same unknown to plaintiff, was in a manner unknown to plaintiff in a defective or dangerous condition, so that either while in use or while a person was near the same the said gaso*318line tank, hose line or connections or some part thereof would leak or spray liquid gas or vaporized gas out of same and upon any person or object near or using same, all in some manner unknown and not ascertainable by plaintiff; that on December 1, 1947, plaintiff had been near such gasoline tank and pump and had operated the same and unknown to him a quantity of gasoline or vapor had collected on his clothing and shortly thereafter when he struck a match his clothing caught fire resulting in the injuries alleged; that defendant Magnolia Petroleum Co. is liable to plaintiff because of its negligence in owning, leasing and operating such defective gasoline tank, pump, hose line and connections; that defendants Bates and Long are liable to plaintiff because they were negligent in owning and operating such defective gasoline tank, pump, hose line and connections and further because they employed or permitted plaintiff, a minor under the age of 16 years, to work in the handling and storing of airplane gasoline.
Plaintiff's evidence consisted chiefly of his own testimony. Plaintiff, who was 15 years old at the time of his injury, testified that he had been employed by defendant Long to work in and around the small airport operated by Long and that he, plaintiff, was permitted to refuel airplanes but had been instructed not to provide fuel for automobiles. Plaintiff admitted that at the time of his injury there was no explosion or flame around the gasoline dispensing equipment and testified that his clothing caught fire while about 15 or 20 feet away from the gas pump while in the process of striking a match with his thumb nail to light a cigarette approximately five or ten minutes after he had, in violation of his instructions, sold one-half gallon of gasoline in a small open-topped naptha can to two stranded motorists, and that the fire was confined to his person.
Plaintiff testified he did not get gasoline on himself while getting the can of gasoline for the motorists. He also testified that just prior to selling the gasoline to the motorists, he had refueled an airplane belonging to Bates. He then testified that he did not have any gasoline on him when he struck the match and three different times testified he positively did not get any gasoline on himself when he refueled the airplane; then later testified that gasoline from some source got on him; that it might have gotten on him from fueling the airplane. When asked why he said he might have gotten gasoline on himself when refueling the plane and did not get any on himself from the can of gasoline he sold to the motorist, he answered: “I could have, I don’t remember that.” He also testified that he could have gotten gas on himself from the hose, but on cross-examination testified that while part of the hose was old, it did not leak and that the hose itself did not make any difference as far as the gas was concerned.
No evidence was offered by plaintiff to show that gasoline or vapor sprayed or leaked from the tank, pump or hose, or that the equipment was in any manner defective. On the contrary, the uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence was that the gasoline dispensing equipment was at all times in good condition, free from defects, and did not leak. Under such circumstances there is no evidence upon which to base a judgment for plaintiff here. Even assuming that the relationship of master and servant existed between defendant Long and plaintiff, as alleged in plaintiff’s petition (although the undisputed evidence is directly to the contrary), still Long would not be liable without some proof of negligence on his part. Negligence on the part of the master is essential to his liability. Abdo v. Mullen, 173 Okl. 144, 44 P.2d 102; 56 C.J.S., Master and Servant, § 171.
In this regard the majority opinion refers to an alleged defectiveness of the tank and pump and the installation of another tank and pump. The only evidence on the point is that at one time the pump was replaced because the old pump would not pump the gasoline out of the tank. There was no evidence that the tank ever leaked or was otherwise defective or was ever replaced or that the pump or hose ever leaked either *319before or after the replacement of the pump. I want to emphasize, however, that the only failure of equipment shown to have occurred and the only reason for replacing the pump was a failure of the old pump to pull any gasoline out of the tank and not any leakage or allowance of gasoline to escape.
The following statement in the majority opinion:
“the hose on the newly installed pump was short and was elongated in a manner described by the testimony, which manner is said to have been improper, or not according to customary demand. The connection resulting in elongation of the pump hose is said to have leaked. The employee, plaintiff, testified that he had complained of leakage where this elongation was made,”
is simply not supported by the record in this case at all. Such opinion does not state who said the hose was elongated in an improper manner or not according to customary demand or that the connection leaked, but certainly no witness who testified in the case so stated. Nor did plaintiff, himself, testify that he had complained of leakage at the connection in the hose. On the contrary, he testified that the hose, although old, did not leak.
As to defendant Magnolia Petroleum Co., the evidence reveals that its only connection with the case was that it owned and had leased gasoline dispensing equipment to defendant Long, for use at the airport, approximately two years prior to the date of plaintiff’s injury. Such equipment was loaned under an agreement that defendant Long would purchase Magnolia’s gasoline in exchange for the use, possession and control of said equipment and that he would maintain the same at his own cost in good condition and repair, and hold Magnolia harmless in connection with the location and use of said equipment. This agreement and the furnishing of the equipment thereunder are unquestioned. Furthermore, since there was no evidence of any defect of any kind in the equipment so furnished, Magnolia could not be held liable in any event.
Although the majority opinion does not reveal it, plaintiff’s chief contention is that negligence may be inferred under the doctrine “res ipsa loquitur” in the absence of any explanation, thereby in effect admitting a lack of proof of negligence. I fail to see how such doctrine could have any application to the case at bar. The term “res ipsa loquitur” literally means “the thing speaks for itself.” It is the term applied to the well established doctrine that where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to have been under the management or control of defendant or his servants and the accident was such as in the ordinary course of things would not have happened if those who had its management or control had used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. Such doctrine, however, cannot be invoked until plaintiff has established, as preliminary propositions, what thing caused the injury and that the thing causing the injury was under the control of the defendants. Ayers v. Amatucci, 206 Okl. 366, 243 P.2d 716; Champlin Refining Co. v. George, 182 Okl. 118, 76 P.2d 895. It does not apply where the facts shown are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the injury sued for was caused by the negligence of either party or of both combined and the act complained of must be shown to have been such as is without explanation except on the theory of negligence in the light of ordinary experience, and the thing causing the accident must have been under the control of defendants at the time of the accident. Ayers v. Amatucci, supra; Cosdon v. Wright, 202 Okl. 211, 211 P.2d 523; Terrell v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 204 Okl. 24, 226 P.2d 431. Since it is manifest from the evidence in this case that the circumstances are not of such character as to give rise to reasonable inferences that if due care had been employed by defendants the accident would not have happened, *320negligence may not tie inferred under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
It might also be observed that under the undisputed evidence neither of the defendants here involved was in possession and control of the premises at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff’s further contention that his employment was in violation of the child labor laws, rendering defendants guilty of negligence as a matter of law, is in my opinion likewise untenable. In the first place, plaintiff was, at the time of his injury, in the employment of John L. Bates and under the uncontradicted evidence was not in the employment of either defendant Magnolia Petroleum Co. or defendant Long. In the second place, plaintiff’s employment was not in violation of such laws. The proof shows that plaintiff was over 15 years of age and just under 16 years of age at the time of his injury. There are two sections of the statute affecting the employment of minors, 40 O.S.1951 §§ 71 and 72. Section 71 pertains only to minors under the age of 14 years and is therefore not applicable to plaintiff. Section 72 prohibits the employment of minors under the age of 16 years in certain specified occupations. Plaintiff’s employment was not one of those specifically forbidden by such section and therefore was not in violation thereof. 56 C.J.S., Master and Servant, §§ 14 and 419; Huffman v. Oklahoma Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Okl., 281 P.2d 436.
Defendants also contend that the court erred in overruling their motion for new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. This contention appears to me to be well taken, but the majority opinion does not even notice it, much less dispose of it.
I am of the opinion that the plaintiff in this case has wholly failed to establish primary negligence on the part of either defendant here involved and that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to enter judgment for defendants. I therefore respectfully dissent.