PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION v. Oliver, 9486.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1933
• Docket Number: No. 9486.,9486.
• Citation: 64 F.2d 60
• Parties: PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION OF ARKANSAS v. OLIVER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

64 F.2d 60 (1933)

PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION OF ARKANSAS v. OLIVER.

No. 9486.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 28, 1933.

C. E. Wright, of El Dorado, Ark. (J. K. Mahony and H. S. Yocum, both of El Dorado, Ark., on the brief), for appellant.

Walter L. Brown, of El Dorado, Ark. (H. C. Steinberg, of El Dorado, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STONE, VAN VALKENBURGH, and BOOTH, Circuit Judges.

VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is a public utility company engaged in the business of laying lines for the transmission of gas along the streets and alleys of the city of El Dorado, Ark., in making meter installations, and in furnishing and supplying gas for domestic use to the consumers of said city. The appellee, Dora Oliver, with her husband, Otis Oliver, and her children, resided in a two-story frame dwelling numbered 419 Florence avenue in said city of El Dorado. On or about August or September, 1928, appellee and her husband ordered gas service from appellant, and connection was duly made. A gas line was installed from the street to the dwelling which was furnished by appellant with all pipe connections, fixtures, appliances, meter, etc., necessary for the use of natural gas in the building. A witness for the defense testified that the company was to install the service line, which, upon installation, was to become the property of the Olivers; but appellee testified that the appellant company was to keep the service line, as well as the regulator and meter, "repaired and in good shape." Appellee and her husband continued to be customers of appellant as consumers of natural gas until on or about December 20, 1929. On that date, between the hours of 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock in the evening, she went to the kitchen of her dwelling to prepare the evening meal. Upon striking a match to light the cookstove a terrific explosion occurred, and a fire followed, which resulted in the complete loss of the building and contents and in severe injuries to appellee, who was confined to hospital for approximately ten and one-half months thereafter. As a result of the severe burns which she sustained, it was found necessary to amputate her left arm between the elbow and wrist; her right arm is bent back and rendered permanently useless; her eyelids are everted and bent upwards by the structure of the skin following a deep burn; she cannot close her eyes, and her vision is somewhat impaired; she is unable to feed or dress herself; she has suffered, and will probably continue to suffer, a great deal of pain in the future; her appearance has been rendered very unsightly by scars and discolorations, and by the condition of her eyes. She sued appellant in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for her injuries so suffered. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in her favor in the sum of $14,000. In her amended and substituted complaint, appellee alleged the following grounds of negligence:

"1. That the defendant, through its agents, servants, and employees, connected this house off a direct high pressure feed line, maintained by defendant instead of an intermediate pressure line, to reduce the gas pressure, because of which fact the high pressure line that was connected by the defendant, as aforesaid, to the house, as aforesaid, carried a pressure of 25 pounds to 75 pounds of gas directly through the line, as aforesaid, to the regulator installed near the meter; that this heavy pressure forced gas through the different line connections near the meter and between the small regulator near the meter and the street, also, through the connections between the regulator and the house, and also from the meter itself causing a leakage of gas, as aforesaid.

"2. That the defendant carelessly and negligently supplied gas to the house, as aforesaid, through a high pressure line, as aforesaid, and carelessly and negligently failed to provide a regulator with proper equipment to reduce the pressure of gas before transmitting it to the premises and house occupied by the plaintiff; that defendant's neglect in this respect consisted in not equipping the regulator installed with a safety valve or `Mercury Seal.'

"3. That due to the fact defendant had carelessly and negligently failed to equip the regulator with a safety valve or `Mercury Seal,' as aforesaid, this heavy and excessive pressure of gas passed through the meter and into the house line causing an unusual and tremendous pressure of gas against the stove valve and also causing a heavy leakage of gas around the diaphragm of the meter itself and through the pipe connections, as aforesaid.

"4. That the defendant carelessly and negligently failed to stop the leakage of gas in the line connections and meter, as aforesaid, which line connections and meter were the property of the defendant and furnished by it, as aforesaid, for the purpose of supplying gas to this plaintiff, as aforesaid, and also defendant carelessly and negligently failed to fix the regulator and equip the same with a proper safety valve or `Mercury Seal.'

"5. That knowledge of the leakage, as aforesaid, was conveyed to the defendant, its servants, agents and employees within a reasonable time prior to the explosion. That it was the duty of the defendant to reduce the pressure of gas on the said line and its connections before transmitting it into the house occupied by the plaintiff and to make the same reasonably safe for use; and, that it was the duty of the defendant to make the necessary repairs to stop the leakage of gas and to reduce the pressure before transmitting it through the meter valve, which duty the defendant failed to discharge."

Appellant denied these allegations specifically, and alleged contributory negligence in the following language: "If gas escaped and accumulated in the building as alleged by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff knew thereof and appreciated the danger, or, by the exercise of reasonable care for her own safety, could have known thereof and appreciated the danger, and she was careless and negligent in igniting said gas and being in a position of danger when the same was ignited."

The specifications of error relied on are, with one exception, founded on the admission of alleged incompetent testimony. That exception is to the following portion of the court's charge: "Now, if you find for the plaintiff, you will award her such damages as she has sustained, those damages being loss of earning power, doctor bill, hospital bill, pain and suffering that she has endured up to the present time by reason of her injury, and such additional pain and suffering as she may endure in the future."

Neither by assignments of error nor by specifications relied upon does appellant challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. Examination of the record discloses that there is much conflict in the testimony, but that the verdict of the jury and the resulting judgment have ample substantial support. Our discussion, therefore, will be confined to a consideration of the points specifically relied upon for reversal.

In the course of examination of the witness George Archibald, plaintiff sought to show in what manner gas from leakages at the...