Rat on Fire - United Novelty Co., Inc. v. Daniels and the Foreseeability of Misconduct
The case of United Novelty Co., Inc. v. Daniels, 42 So.2d 395. arises from a Mississippi tort cause of action. In the mid 1940’s a fatal explosion occurred inside of an 8 foot by 10 foot facility room. Following a Mississippi jury trial court verdict, the Supreme Court of Mississippi evaluated the concept of foreseeability as it is implemented in the framework of American tort law. The case remains a noteworthy historical decision that reflects the manner in which many courts interpreted the concept of foreseeability in the 1940’s and thereafter.
The evidence admitted at trial indicates that in the 1940’s William Daniels worked as a machinist at a manufacturing facility in Mississippi. At the time that Daniels was employed as a machinist, he was legally still a minor. Daniels was tasked with many duties, one notably being the care and cleaning of the mechanical equipment inside of the facility. On the date of the explosion, Daniels was cleaning a coin operated machine inside of a relatively small room. Daniels was believed to be using gasoline to clean the machine. Also inside of the room Daniels was cleaning was a gas powered heater.
The Explosion
At trial, Plaintiff’s counsel brought evidence to support a theory that the explosion was foreseeable given the tight confines of the room and the presence of gasoline vapors while Daniels worked. It was asserted that while Daniels was cleaning the machinery, a rat had been occupying a space inside one of the lower compartments of the machine. As Daniels was cleaning the machinery with gasoline, some of the gasoline had dripped down and soaked the rat’s fur. The rat then ran out from underneath the machinery and towards the open flame and heat of the gas fed heater.
The gasoline soaked rat was believed to have come in close proximity to the gas fed flame. As a result, a massive explosion occurred. Daniels unfortunately died from the injuries that he sustained in the explosion. Following his death, members of Daniels’ family brought a negligence suit against his employer. The Plaintiffs won a verdict at the trial court and thereafter the employer filed an appeal. The case eventually was brought before the Supreme Court of Mississippi in 1949.
United Novelty Co., Inc. v. Daniels, 42 So.2d 395.
The Appelent sought to reverse the verdict and judgement with argument that the manner of ignition in the explosion, being the rat catching fire, was not foreseeable for purposes of the lawsuit.. One of the employer’s primary contentions against liability was that it was unforseeable that a rat would be soaked in gasoline inside of the machine and run near the flame to cause an explosion. The Supreme Court of Mississippi was ultimately not persuaded by this argument.
Negligence would be predicated of the juxtaposition of the gasolene and the open flame. Under similar circumstances, the particular detonating agency, whether, as here, an animate version of the classic lighted squib, or as in Johnson v. Kosmos Portland Cement Co., . . . 64 F.2d 193, a bolt of lightning, was incidental except as illustrating the range of foreseeability . . .
United Novelty Co., Inc. v. Daniels, 42 So.2d 395.
The Court then further reflected on the contentions from the employer that employees had been instructed on safe use of the cleaning agents. This point did not persuade the Court.
. . . It is argued that the deceased disobeyed instructions in using gasolene. Without discussing the efficacy of such contention as a complete bar, the record fails to show that any such orders were ever given the deceased. The insistent and consistent testimony of defendants' witnesses that there were repeated admonitions to employees not to use gasolene is more relevant to the foreseeability, even expectancy, of defendant that resort would be made to this cleaning agency, than to the fact of disobedience, since there is no showing that deceased himself was warned.
See Id. Finally the Court provided a direct ruling on the issue of an employee’s own misconduct and how such misconduct may still fall within the bounds of foreseeability.
“Negligence and disobedience of a servant are not excluded from the outreach of a master’s duty to foresee probable conduct. The duty of the master is not met by the adoption of rules for safety, but includes a duty reasonably to enforce them. ”
In holding in the Plaintiff’s favor, the Supreme Court of Mississippi made a very important distinction. Aside from the novel set of facts that gave rise to the case, United Novelty Co., Inc. v. Daniels, remains an integral piece in the development of American tort law as it relates to the concept of foreseeability. The manner by which an injury occurs may be unexpected, but when the general injury is something that could reasonably arise from the circumstances, courts will often be receptive to the argument of f foreseeability. In United Novelty Co., Inc. v. Daniels the fact that the rat caused the explosion may have been unexpected, but that an explosion would occur inside of a small room with a gas fed flame was not unforeseeable. Plaintiffs that have been injured or other individuals involved in a personal injury matter may look to United as a means to evaluate the concept of foreseeability as it relates to their case.
Note: This article is intended to provide a general summation on a legal topic and should not be construed as legal advice in any manner. Readers should consider speaking with an attorney prior to acting upon the information contained in this publication. Nothing in this article or database may be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship.