Mobil Chemical Co. v. Bell

517 S.W.2d 245 (1974)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps were employees of C. F. Braun and were working on D's plant. As each section of the plant was completed, it was tested and turned over to D. Braun had completed all of Unit A and conducted a hydrostatic test under the supervision of D. The hydrostatic test consisted of filling the system with water under pressure substantially above operating level to check for leaks. Unit A passed this test and was accepted. D also conducted a visual inspection of the entire system and was satisfied that the Unit was assembled properly and that all equipment was in place. D began the process of 'commissioning' the Unit. This consisted of operating the equipment first with water and later with acetic acid, but without actually producing TPA. A pressure surge caused the pressure in the feed line to exceed 850 p.s.i. The pressure relief mechanism worked perfectly -- the discs ruptured, the relief valve relieved the pressure, and the pressure gauge indicated that the discs were ruptured. D replaced the discs, bled the acetic acid out of the relief mechanism, and continued the commissioning process. A short time later, the feed line was again over pressured. This time, the pressure relief mechanism failed and acetic acid under high pressure spurted out of the quarter-inch pipe and into the atmosphere, creating both a danger to personnel and a fire hazard. Jerry Griffith, D's process superintendent, put on protective equipment, crawled out on the feed line, and stopped the leak by closing Valve A. Ps were at a point some 70 feet from the rupture. Both were exposed to strong acetic acid vapor and suffered respiratory damage. Ps sued D. They alleged specific acts of negligence in failing to either have the pressure gauge in place or close Valve A and in the alternative pleaded res ipsa loquitur. The jury did not find any specific acts of negligence. It did find that D failed to use ordinary care in maintaining the plant and that such failure was a proximate cause of the incident in question. The district court overruled D's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and entered judgment for Ps. On appeal by D the court of appeals agreed that the facts of the case raise the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur but concluded that in res ipsa cases where there is evidence of causes other than D's negligence, the jury should be asked if it finds from a preponderance of the evidence that: '1. The character and circumstance of the accident is such as to lend reasonably to the belief that, without negligence, it would not have occurred. '2. The thing that caused the injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the defendant. '3. It is more reasonably probable that the accident was caused by defendant's negligence than not.' This appeal resulted.