Pye Datsun, Inc. v. Gas, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pye Datsun, Inc. v. Gas, Inc.

339 S.E.2d 791, 177 Ga. App. 538, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1461

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1986

Docket71904

StatusPublished

This text of 339 S.E.2d 791 (Pye Datsun, Inc. v. Gas, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pye Datsun, Inc. v. Gas, Inc., 339 S.E.2d 791, 177 Ga. App. 538, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1461 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Chief Judge.

The appellants, as the owners and lessees of certain premises which were destroyed by fire, sued the appellee, a distributor of propane gas, alleging that the fire was caused by its negligence. This appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the appellee.

A consulting engineer testified that the fire probably had resulted from over pressurization in a propane gas line, caused by an accumulation of debris in the line. This witness opined that an in-line filter would have stopped the debris from accumulating but testified that no such filter had ever been designed or manufactured and that a failure to utilize one was not a deviation from present industry standards. The appellants’ sole enumeration of error concerns the trial court’s direction of a partial verdict in favor of the appellee with regard to their allegation that the appellee’s failure to install such a filter constituted negligence. Held:

Even with regard to potentially dangerous instrumentalities, such as gas and electricity, the requisite standard of care is that of ordinary care under the circumstances. See Hand v. Harrison, 99 Ga. App. 429 (3) (108 SE2d 814) (1959). See also Lemming v. J. P. Roberts & Sons, 130 Ga. App. 564 (203 SE2d 898) (1974). The record and transcript in the present case contain no basis whatever for a conclusion that the appellee’s failure to devise or install an in-line filter constituted a lack of ordinary care. Accordingly, the evidence, with all [539]*539reasonable deductions therefrom, demanded a verdict in favor of the appellee as to this issue. See generally OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). It follows that the trial court did not err in so ruling.

Decided January 22, 1986. Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., Michael C. Cherof, E. Crawford McDonald, for appellants. William Q. Bird, Edward R. Still, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Banke, Chief Judge.

The appellants, as the owners and lessees of certain premises which were destroyed by fire, sued the appellee, a distributor of propane gas, alleging that the fire was caused by its negligence. This appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the appellee.

A consulting engineer testified that the fire probably had resulted from over pressurization in a propane gas line, caused by an accumulation of debris in the line. This witness opined that an in-line filter would have stopped the debris from accumulating but testified that no such filter had ever been designed or manufactured and that a failure to utilize one was not a deviation from present industry standards. The appellants’ sole enumeration of error concerns the trial court’s direction of a partial verdict in favor of the appellee with regard to their allegation that the appellee’s failure to install such a filter constituted negligence. Held:

Even with regard to potentially dangerous instrumentalities, such as gas and electricity, the requisite standard of care is that of ordinary care under the circumstances. See Hand v. Harrison, 99 Ga. App. 429 (3) (108 SE2d 814) (1959). See also Lemming v. J. P. Roberts & Sons, 130 Ga. App. 564 (203 SE2d 898) (1974). The record and transcript in the present case contain no basis whatever for a conclusion that the appellee’s failure to devise or install an in-line filter constituted a lack of ordinary care. Accordingly, the evidence, with all [539]*539reasonable deductions therefrom, demanded a verdict in favor of the appellee as to this issue. See generally OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). It follows that the trial court did not err in so ruling.

Decided January 22, 1986. Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., Michael C. Cherof, E. Crawford McDonald, for appellants. William Q. Bird, Edward R. Still, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.E.2d 791, 177 Ga. App. 538, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pye-datsun-inc-v-gas-inc-gactapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack