Sanders v. Reid

54 S.E.2d 482, 79 Ga. App. 519, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 683
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 2, 1949
Docket32516.
StatusPublished

This text of 54 S.E.2d 482 (Sanders v. Reid) 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
Sanders v. Reid, 54 S.E.2d 482, 79 Ga. App. 519, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 683 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949).

Opinion

Sutton, C. J.

This was an action for damages brought in Floyd Superior Court by Mrs. Effie Sanders against J. P. Reid and Charles S. Reid, d/b/a the J. P. Reid Furniture Company, on account of personal injuries and property damage caused by the explosion of a stove which she purchased at the said furniture company and installed in her home. The petition as amended alleged substantially that the plaintiff purchased a used stove from said defendants; that after it was installed in her home a fire was built in it and the heater exploded, causing certain described personal injuries and property damage; that upon examination of the stove after the explosion it was found to have been a laundry heater with a water j acket; that the outlets from the jacket had been plugged and water had been sealed in the jacket; that steam, generated in the jacket after the fire was started, had caused the explosion; and that the defendants were negligent in selling and delivering to her a defective stove without advising her of its dangerous character. The case was tried; a verdict was directed for the defendant Charles S. Reid; and the jury returned a= verdict for the defendant J. P. Reid. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was overruled and she excepted.

The case is here on the general grounds of the motion for a new trial, it being contended by the plaintiff in error that the verdict in favor of the defendant, J. P. Reid, was not authorized by the evidence, and that a verdict for the plaintiff was demanded by the evidence. No contention is made in respfect to the directed verdict in favor of the defendant Charles S. Reid.

Dr. Lee H. Battles, a witness for the plaintiff, testified as to his treatment of the plaintiff on or about December 6, 1947, and thereafter. It appears from his testimony that she had a compound fracture of the left ankle, and that she received treatment at the Floyd Hospital, and that her leg was in a cast for about three months.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Sanders, testified as follows: She went to the furniture store about December 1, 1947, and looked at some stoves, but made no purchase. At this time she talked with J. P. Reid. On December 4, 1947, she returned to the store, *521 and Charles Reid waited on her. She did not want a stove for heating water, and knew nothing about water connections on stoves used for heating water. Neither J. P. Reid 'nor Charles Reid told her that the stove she eventually purchased was a stove for heating water, but they told her it was a plain heater. She purchased a stove on December 4, and it was delivered to her home by two employees of the furniture company. She asked these men to install the stove, but they did not have the time to do this. On December 5 and 6 she called the store, and talked with Charles Reid one time, and with J. P. Reid the other time. Each time she asked them to send someone to install the stove, but they told her they did not know when it would be. J. P. Reid advised her to get someone else to install it. She saw a colored man in the street in front of her house and asked him to install the stove. He said it would take two men to do the job, and secured another colored man to help him. These men put the legs on the stove, installed a pipe oven, and connected the pipe to the flue. No water connections were made. This work was done on Saturday afternoon, December 6, 1947, and was completed about 3 p. m. She then left her house and went to work, and when she returned about 6:30 p. m. she started a fire in the heater, using paper, kindling, and coal. After the fire began to get hot she noticed water dripping from around one or both of the plugs, and steam was escaping from one of them. She wiped the water off with a towel, and sat down. No attempt was made to remove the plugs which were in the openings.to the water jacket. About this time the stove exploded. It was broken into numerous pieces, and a piece of metal hit her leg and fractured it. Her furniture and house were also damaged. She identified a plug as being one of the plugs that was in the heater and stated that her sister-in-law found it on December 17 on the floor in the kitchen near where the heater was. She never found another plug. She thought the plugs in the outlets from the water jacket were bolts which belonged on the stove, and she noticed them when J. P. Reid showed her the stove.

W. H. Bates testified for the plaintiff as follows: He is a police officer of the City of Rome, and was so employed on December 6, 1947. About 7 p. m. he received a call to go to 909 E. First Street and went there immediately, arriving some three *522 or four minutes after receiving the call. It appeared that there had been an explosion of some kind. Mrs. Effie Sanders was using the telephone. Another woman was putting the fire out. Live coals and parts of the stove were scattered on the floor. The stove was a water-jacket type heater and the outer shell had been blown clear of the inner shell, and was in a number of pieces. The inner shell of the stove was not damaged much. Water in that type of jacket in his opinion would generate enough steam to cause an explosion. This would not happen if the holes for the water connections were not plugged. He identified a piece of the stove and a plug, and said that on the night of the explosion he examined this same piece of metal, and that the plug, or another like it, was in the hole in the piece of metal. Several days after the explosion he went to the plaintiff’s house with J. P. Reid and Officer Horne. At that time he told Reid that there was a plug in the piece of iron. They raked a space 4 or 5 feet wide from the place where they would have had, to have thrown the stove off the back porch to the sidewalk in front of the house. They did not find the plug at that time. He did not tell Reid he had not found a plug the night of the explosion. He examined the wall of the kitchen where a small hole had been knocked out, behind where the stove would have been, and directly under the flue, and enlarged the hole enough to put his hand through, but did not find anything. When he found the plug the night of the explosion he left it where he found it.

W. T. McKinny, a witness for the defendants, testified as follows: Pie is the Chief of the Rome Fire Department. On the night of the explosion he answered the fire alarm call, and made an investigation to determine what caused the stove to explode. A search was made for plugs in the room where the explosion occurred. He and the men assisting him did not find any plugs and that -was why they could not determine that the explosion was caused by steam generated in the water j acket of the heater. One of the firemen had been a moulder at the foundry and he helped make the investigation because he was familiar with that type stove. Steam would not have caused the stove to explode unless the water jacket was plugged. The damage to the stove was primarily to the outer jacket.

*523 W. H. Cooper, a witness for the defendants, testified that he was the Assistant Chief of the Fire Department, and went to the scene of the explosion; that he did not see any plug, but did not examine the pieces of the stove which were on the floor.

Henry Johnson, a witness for the defendant, testified that he was a member of the Rome Fire Department, and answered a, call, along with other firemen, to the home of Mrs. Sanders, and that he helped search for plugs, but never found one.

J. P.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 S.E.2d 482, 79 Ga. App. 519, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-reid-gactapp-1949.