Ruzzi v. Butler Petroluem Company

527 Pa. 1, 588 A.2d 1 (1991)

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

Zinsser entered into an agreement with D which provided that D would refurbish Zinsser's gasoline station, fitting it, among other things, with gasoline tanks, appropriate plumbing, and pumps for the tanks, a Texaco credit card imprinter, a Texaco sign, and a complete exterior painting scheme following the Texaco pattern. Zinssers would purchase petroleum products from D for a certain length of time. The agreement contained an indemnity clause. A sign was being installed. D arranged Shockey for the purchase and transportation of four used fiberglass gasoline tanks, three of which were to be installed below ground at Zinsser's station, but which at the time P arrived, were sitting on the ground near the sign. One of the tanks had a hole in the top and contained 50 to 100 gallons of gasoline. No one saw the hole or realized that the tank contained gasoline. P was injured when a torch he was using to cut rusted bolts from the existing sign ignited fumes escaping from the fiberglass tank, causing an explosion and fire and knocking P from his ladder. P filed suit seeking damages for personal injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of P and against D and Shockey in the amount of $321,000.00. The trial court also awarded delay damages of $67,981.85, and the verdict was molded to include delay damages for a total award of $388,981.85. One of the issues on appeal was whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of an expert witness.