Raymond v. Baehr

184 N.W.2d 14, 289 Minn. 24, 1970 Minn. LEXIS 1289

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
• Decided: December 18, 1970
• Docket: 42266
• Status: Published

Opinions

Peterson, Justice.

Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs in an action arising out of a fire and explosion in a commercial building in Brainerd, Minnesota, owned by defendants.

The general factual situation is adequately stated in Raymond v. Baehr, 282 Minn. 102, 168 N. W. (2d) 54; Id. 282 Minn. 109, 163 N. W. (2d) 51. The specific fact upon which the present appeal turns is that the damaging fire, followed by explosion, spread through a ventilating duct constructed of plywood, with some tin, in violation of a municipal ordinance. Brainerd Building Code, § 32, duly adopted in 1925, prior to construction of defendants’' building, provides:

“Vent Flues. Vent flues or duets, for the removal of foul or vitiated.air, in which the temperature of the air cannot exceed that of the .rooms, shall be constructed of metal or other incombustible material, and shall not be placed nearer than one (1) inch to any woodwork, and no such flue shall be used for any other purpose.” (Italics supplied.)

Defendants concede that the jury verdict and judgment may be sustained if, but only if, that ordinance was applicable to the particular duct work in defendants’ building.

The ventilating duct on the first floor of defendants’ building, as the evidence clearly establishes, was designed and used solely for the purpose of introducing fresh, cooled, outside air into the building. Although the ordinance required that vent flues or ducts shall be constructed of incombustible material, it contains parenthetical language describing such vent flues or ducts as “for the removal of foul or vitiated air.” The crux of defendants’ argument is that those descriptive words are words of limitation and that they must be read literally, without judicial substitution of “introduction” for “removal” or “fresh” for “foul.” We conclude, as did the trial court, that the ordinance does not compel so literal a construction. Although it may be acknowledged that the ordinance was not artfully drafted, its unmistakable intent and purpose were to reduce the hazard of fire from ventilating flues or ducts construction of combustible material.¹

Affirmed.

1 A hazard the ordinance was manifestly intended to prevent was demonstrated by the evidence of what actually occurred. Numerous witnesses observed that the fire, first discovered at one end of the block-long building, in close proximity to the first floor ventilating duct, traveled through the duct to the other end of the building, where the explosion occurred. Brainerd’s fire chief gave his unchallenged expert opinion that the fire, feeding upon the plywood in the duct, ultimately reached and ignited unburned gases collected at the other end of the duct.