This аction was brought to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of alleged negligence of respondents. Upon a trial before the court, judgment was rendered for respondents, and appellant now appeals from such judgment.
Respondent Nead conducts a machine shop in the city of Sonora. This shop consists of the building where work is performed. At the rear of such building there is a door which opens into an area where respondent deposited junk frоm his shop, including scrap iron, bolts and nuts of various sizes. On the date of the accident appellant went to said shop for the purpose of having certain holes cut in a metal plate so that an engine could be bolted to it, using it as a foundation. While the foreman of respondent Nead (defendant Tweed), was working оn the plate in the shop building, appellant, without being directed to do so, and of his own volition, went out the rear door mentioned above, *480 got a nut from the junk pilе outside, and started to enter the door. Just at that time a can of gasoline within the building caught fire, another employee of respondent Nead (defendant Valenzuala), put this flaming can out the rear door. Some of the flames enveloped appellant as he was about to enter the door, and burned his legs. It is alleged in the complaint that the injuries inflicted were permanent.
It is contended by appellant that there is no evidence to support the finding to the effеct that respondents were free from negligence. In other words, he contends that the evidence adduced is reasonably susceptible of
one
construction only—that respondents were negligent. In the case of
Vaughn
v.
Bixby,
“Even if there be no conflict in the evidence, nevertheless, if the inferences fairly deducible therefrom are such that different conclusions might rationally be drawn therefrom by men equally sensible and impartial, the conclusion reached by the jury should be deemed final and not disturbed on appeal for want of sufficient evidence to justify the verdict. (Herbert v. Southern Pacific, Co.,121 Cal. 227 [53 Pac. 651 ] ; Hoff v. Los Angeles Pacific Co.,158 Cal. 596 [112 Pac. 53 ].) ”
Appellant states that the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur
applies to the case, and relies upon the rule laid down in
Sistrunk
v.
Texas Holding Co.,
‘ ‘ The effect of the doctrine when applied to this case is that proof of the injuries to the plaintiff, provided such injuries are shown to have been caused through the explosion or ignition upon the defendant’s property of crude рetroleum located thereon, which property and which petroleum were under the exclusive management and control of the defendant, creаted a prima facie case or presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant which it is called upon to meet or rebut. This presumption that the injury or damаge was caused by the negligence of the defendant is itself a fact which the jury must consider in determining its verdict, and in the absence of contributory negligence neсessitates a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. ’ ’
We are of the opinion that the rule laid down in the foregoing case is not applicable to the situation here, for the reason that the ignition of the gasoline was not the proximate cause of the injury. “To constitute proximate cause creat
*481
ing liability for negligеnce, the injury must have been the natural and probable consequence of the negligent act. It is the cause which, unbroken by any intervening, independent agenсy, naturally produces a given result.” (45 C. J., p. 911, par. 482.) Additional facts relating to the ignition of the gasoline are as follows: Just prior to the fire, one of the employees of respondent Nead (defendant "Valenzuala), was cleaning an engine with gasoline, a can of which was held in one of his hands. In the same shop anothеr employee (defendant Tweed), was working upon appellant’s order, and using an acetylene torch. The can of gasoline suddenly burst into flame, and the mаn who was holding the burning can in his hand went to the rear door and “put” the can outside the door. At that moment appellant started to enter the door, and the flamеs ignited his clothing. Defendant Tweed, who was working with the acetylene torch, testified that in his opinion the fire was caused by the torch, but there is no direct evidence оf the cause of the ignition of the gasoline. If appellant had been standing inside the shop and was burned by the sudden fire, the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur
could be invoked, following the Sistrunk case,
supra,
and the ease of
Faras
v.
Lower California Dev. Co.,
As the doctrine mentioned is not available to appellant under such facts, it becomes necessary to consider whether or not the record is such that only one conclusion could be reasonably drawn therefrom—that respondents were negligent. The facts must be examined and construed in the light of the rule that “such finding is not to be overthrown on appеal unless it is very plain to the appellate court that the conclusion reached cannot be supported on any rational view of the testimony”.
(Lewis
v.
Lewis,
It is unnecessary to discuss the question as to the status of appellant, and the contention of respondents that аppellant was a mere licensee, and, as such, respondents owed him no duty except not to wilfully or wantonly injure him.
The judgment is affirmed.
Pullen, P. J., and Thompson, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this causе was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 8, 1940, and an application by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on March 8, 1940, and the following opinion then rendered thereon:
In denying appellant’s petition for a hearing by this court in this case, we withhold our approval from that portion of the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, holding to the effect,that actual knowledge on the part of
*483
defendant’s employee of plaintiff’s presence was necessary to establish liability of the defendants for plaintiff’s injury, as the tеst is not only whether the defendant engaged in the commission of the negligent act knew of, but also whether he had reason to expect, the presence of the person injured within the range of his negligent acts.
(Hamakawa
v.
Crescent Wharf etc. Co.,
4 Cal. (2d) 499,