Bellefuil v. Willmar Gas Co., 36222
| Decision Date | 05 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 36222,36222 |
| Citation | 243 Minn. 123,66 N.W.2d 779 |
| Parties | Gladys D. BELLEFUIL, Adm'x of Estate of Albin R. Bellefuil, a.k.a. Albin Bellefuil, deceased, Appellant, v. WILLMAR GAS CO., Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In order to hold a gas company liable for defects in a customer's appliance the plaintiff must prove that the cause of the injury was escaping gas, that such gas belonged to the defendant gas company, that it escaped through the negligence of the gas company, that it accumulated in the place where the injury occurred, and that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the injury.
2. A distributor of gas must exercise a degree of care to prevent the escape of gas proportionate to the danger which it is its duty to avoid.
3. With respect to gas appliances in a customer's building which are not installed, owned, or controlled by the gas company, a gas company has no duty to make periodic inspections to ascertain the safety of such appliances in the absence of some contract, custom, or statutory obligation.
4. The company can act upon the assumption, in the absence of notice to the contrary, that the customer's appliances are in repair so as to permit the transmission of gas therein with safety. SC 5. A gas company is guilty of negligence if a leak in a customer's pipes and appliances causes injury to persons or property, provided the company has sufficient notice of such leak or leaks, and having such notice (a) negligently inspects or negligently repairs; (b) agrees and assumes to inspect and repair, and then fails to do so; (c) refuses to inspect and repair, knowing a dangerous condition exists, and with such knowledge fails to shut off its gas until the owner can have his pipes and appliances properly repaired.
6. Whenever a gas company is in possession of facts that would suggest to a person of ordinary care and prudence that an appliance of a customer is leaking or otherwise unsafe for the transportation of gas, the company has a duty to investigate, as a person of ordinary care and prudence similarly situated and handling such a dangerous substance would do, before it continues to furnish additional gas.
Affirmed.
Freeman, Larson & Peterson, Minneapolis, Charles A. Oberg, Willmar, Thomas J. Burke, St. Paul, of counsel, for appellant.
Meagher, Geer, Markham & Anderson, O. C. Adamson II and David W. Nord, Minneapolis, Roy A. Hendrickson, Willmar, for respondent.
Plaintiff in a wrongful death action appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant.
On May 16, 1948, Albin R. Bellefuil was fatally injured as a result of an explosion of an automatic gas water heater in his home. The defendant, Willmar Gas Co., Inc., supplied the gas for the heater but did not own, control, or install it. In October of 1947 the pilot light on the automatic water heater went out. This failure of the pilot light was reported to the defendant. However, before the defendant's serviceman arrived, plaintiff turned off the gas supply, aired out the cellar, and relighted the pilot light with a match. At least a week after the complaint had been made, a serviceman of the defendant arrived to adjust the pilot light. Between the time of the complaints which were reported to the defendant in October 1947 and April 1948, the pilot light was found unlighted a couple of times. A strong odor of gas attended each failure of the pilot light, but there is no showing that such odor was ever reported to the defendant gas company.
In April of 1948 the pilot light went out again and was relighted by the plaintiff. Within a few days thereafter, plaintiff and her husband went to the office of the defendant and notified an employee to send someone to look at the heater because the pilot light would not stay lighted. The defendant's employee told the plaintiff and her husband that somebody would be sent to look at the water heater although the servicemen were 'pretty busy' then.
On the morning of May 16, 1948, the plaintiff's husband went to the cellar to ascertain why there was no hot water available. Shortly after her husband had descended the stairway to the cellar, plaintiff was thrown out of bed by the force of an explosion which damaged the house and fatally injured her husband.
An expert who testified for the defendant gave his opinion that the explosion was caused by gas escaping from the main burner of the heater which was caused by the failure of an automatic shutoff valve to close after the pilot light went out. He also testified that the explosion in question could not have been caused by the unlighted pilot light. There is no evidence in the record to contradict this testimony.
The case was submitted to the jury which found in favor of the plaintiff, but the defendant was granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The issue arising on this appeal is whether a gas company can be found negligent for failure to investigate or shut off the gas supply where the company was notified that a pilot light on a customer's hot water heater would not stay lighted, although the explosion was caused by gas escaping because of the failure of an automatic shut-off device.
1. A company engaged in the distribution of gas is dealing with a substance which is highly dangerous if allowed to escape. 1 In spite of this fact, the law has not made gas companies insurers for personal injuries and property damages resulting from the escape of gas. 2 In order to hold a gas company liable for defects in a customer's appliance the plaintiff must prove that the cause of the injury was escaping gas, that such gas belonged to the defendant gas company, that it escaped through the negligence of the gas company, that it accumulated in the place where the injury occurred, and that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the injury. 3
2. In the present case the only question arising on this appeal is whether the defendant gas company can be found negligent under the facts stated herein. A distributor of gas must exercise a degree of care to prevent the escape of gas proportionate to the danger which it is its duty to avoid. 4
3--4. With respect to gas appliances in a customer's building which are not installed, owned, or controlled by the gas company, a gas company has no duty to make periodic inspections to ascertain the safety of such appliances in the absence of some contract, custom, or statutory obligation. 5 The company can act upon the assumption, in the absence of notice to the contrary, that the customer's appliances are in repair so as to permit the transmission of gas therein with safety. 6 In the absence of a contrary showing, it is the responsibility of the customer to maintain and repair his appliances. 7 If, however, a gas company acquires, or ought reasonably to have acquired, knowledge of a dangerous condition, it is its duty to shut off the gas until the customer has his pipes, connections, and appliances properly repaired. 8
Thus, when the plaintiff's husband reported to the gas company that the pilot light would not stay lighted and that, if someone wasn't sent up to look at it, he would have to take the heater out, he reported a condition which it was his responsibility to have repaired in the absence of a showing that the gas company had assumed that responsibility. Since the plaintiff made no such showing, we find that plaintiff was responsible for the repair of the defective pilot light and did not shift his responsibility to the defendant gas company merely because of the notification.
5. The rule with respect to leaks from appliances of a customer has been stated as follows:
"A gas company is guilty of negligence if a leak in a customer's pipes and appliances causes injury to persons or property, provided the company has sufficient notice of such leak or leaks, and having such notice (a) negligently inspects or negligently repairs; (b) agrees and assumes to inspect and repair, and then fails to do so; (c) refuses to inspect and repair knowing a dangerous condition exists, and with such knowledge fails to shut off its gas until the owner can have his pipes and appliances properly repaired." 9
The plaintiff relies on the last portion of the rule for his theory of recovery. Nevertheless, plaintiff did not show that her husband or anyone else gave the defendant notice that gas was leaking or notice of the existence of a condition reasonably indicative of the danger of a gas leakage. The only notice relied upon by plaintiff is that given when her husband told the gas company that the pilot light would not stay lighted and that, if someone was not sent to look at it, he would have to take it out. Thus plaintiff cannot recover on the law as stated in Miller v. Wichita Gas Co., 139 Kan. 729, 33 P.2d 130. Notice of escaping gas points to some defect that should be attended to; whereas, notice of a defective pilot light does not of itself point to some other defect which is dangerous.
6. The rule expressed in Miller v. Wichita Gas Co.,sup...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co.
...accord Suiter v. Ohio Valley Gas Co., 10 Ohio St.2d 77, 78, 39 O.O.2d 65, 225 N.E.2d 792, 793 (1967); Bellefuil v. Willmar Gas Co., 243 Minn. 123, 126, 66 N.W.2d 779, 782 (1954); Graham, 231 N.C. at 684,58 S.E.2d at 761. However, a gas company is not liable as an insurer for injuries sustai......
-
Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co.
...Gould up until recent times, this court has consistently followed Gould. The negligence rule was recognized in Bellefuil v. Willmar Gas Co., 243 Minn. 123, 66 N.W.2d 779 (1954). We rejected an invitation to make a gas distributor, in effect, an insurer of the safety of its operations in DeV......
-
Van Den Hul v. Baltic Farmers Elevator Co.
...of gas. They cite, inter alia, Simpson v. Skelly Oil Co., 371 F.2d 563, 567 (8th Cir.1967), and Bellefuil v. Willmar Gas Co., 243 Minn. 123, 66 N.W.2d 779, 783 (1954). Koopman concedes that a distributor of gas has certain obligations with respect to safety of a pipeline, but argues that th......
-
Russell v. City of Idaho Falls
...that the wiring or appliances of the customer are not safe. We deem such to be a correct statement of the law, Bellefuil v. Willmar Gas Co., 243 Minn. 123, 66 N.W.2d 779; Null v. Electric Power Board of City of Nashville, Tenn.App., 210 S.W.2d 490; Dabbs v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 194 T......