Hutchinson v. Boston Gas Light Co.

• Decision Date: 07 March 1877
• Citation: 122 Mass. 219
• Parties: Martha A. Hutchinson v. Boston Gas Light Company
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

122 Mass. 219

Martha A. Hutchinson v. Boston Gas Light Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

March 7, 1877

Argued November 16, 1876

Suffolk. Tort for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in jumping from a burning building near the corner of Washington Street and Summer Street in Boston, on the night of November 10, 1872 the fire being alleged to have been caused by an explosion of gas, through the defendant's negligence. Trial in this court, before Lord, J., who, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, directed a verdict for the defendant, and reported the case for the consideration of the full court, on the question whether there was any evidence for the jury of the defendant's negligence. If there was such evidence, the verdict was to be set aside and the case stand for trial; otherwise, judgment to be entered on the verdict. The nature of the evidence appears in the opinion.

Judgment on the verdict.

F. W Hurd, (E. P. Nettleton with him,) for the plaintiff.

R. M Morse, Jr. & C. P. Greenough, for the defendant.

Colt J. Ames & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt

The question upon this report is, whether the plaintiff's evidence would warrant the jury in finding that the defendant's negligence was the cause of the fire and the injuries complained of.

There was evidence that the fire, which was communicated to the building, was caused by an explosion of gas in the vicinity; and it is contended that there was evidence tending to show that this gas was negligently permitted by the defendant to escape from the street mains, or suffered afterwards to remain accumulated in the neighboring sewers and cesspools in dangerous quantities. The fire followed close upon, if it was not in fact a continuation of the great fire of November 9, 1872. That conflagration, although under control, was still not wholly subdued among the ruins of a large part of the business portion of the city; the streets were full of rubbish from the falling walls. The district was carefully guarded by the military and police force of the city; there were continuous sounds of explosion in different parts of the burned district; multitudes thronged the city to look upon the ruins. In the forenoon of Sunday, the 10th, a heavy gas explosion occurred near the corner of Summer Street and Washington Street, which blew off and broke the sewer cover. There was an unprecedented state of excitement and insecurity, and great efforts on the part of the public authorities were needed to restore order and prevent still further calamity.

This state of things is sufficiently disclosed in the evidence reported. The court is bound to take notice of it, in considering the nature and weight of the evidence relied on to prove the defendant's negligence. Upon a careful consideration of that evidence, we are of opinion that there is not enough to justify a verdict for the plaintiff, charging the defendant with negligence.

It is clearly not one of those cases where negligence can be inferred from the happening of the accident alone. Le Barron v. East Boston Ferry Co. 11 Allen 312. Kendall v. Boston, 118 Mass. 234. The burden is on the plaintiff to show some specific act or acts of negligence, and to show further that such negligence directly contributed to the result.

It is urged that evidence is found in the failure of the defendant to guard against the effects of the fire of November 9th in deranging their system and destroying their pipes. But there is no rule of law which requires individuals or corporations to provide against an overwhelming calamity which, in the exercise of ordinary prudence, could not have been foreseen. There must be an omission to do something which a reasonable man, acting upon considerations which...