Bradley v. Shreveport Gas, Electric Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1917
• Docket Number: 22325
• Citation: 76 So. 230,142 La. 49
• Parties: BRADLEY v. SHREVEPORT GAS, ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. et al
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

76 So. 230

142 La. 49

BRADLEY v. SHREVEPORT GAS, ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. et al

No. 22325

Supreme Court of Louisiana

April 16, 1917

On Rehearing, June 30, 1917

Alexander & Wilkinson and Browne, Roberts & Browne, all of Shreveport for appellants.

Joseph H. Levy, of Shreveport, for appellee.

O'NIELL J., dissents from that part of the decree allowing interest from judicial demand instead of from date of the judgment and otherwise concurs.

OPINION

PROVOSTY, J.

The plaintiff, Augusta Bradley, sues in damages for the sufferings and death of her husband, Cy Bradley, and the loss of his companionship, and also for the loss of a horse, which losses resulted from an ignition or explosion of gas at the compress of the Columbia Compress Company in the city of Shreveport. This company is made a defendant, and also the Shreveport Gas, Electric Light & Power Company and the Southwestern Gas & Electric Company. The one gas company is the successor of the other, and admits its liability if the other is held liable, hence the two gas companies may be referred to simply as the Gas Company. It supplied the gas for firing the boilers of the Compress Company, and the plaintiff's husband, Bradley, was the fireman. The flow of gas not being satisfactory, owing to the presence of salt water in the pipe, the Gas Company was notified to remedy the trouble, and it sent its workman, Peavy, to attend to the matter. He opened a 4-inch outlet in the pipe, and let the gas pressure blow out the salt water and whatever other obstruction there might be in the pipe. This outlet was under a shed which was some 40 feet long, 18 feet wide at one end, and 33 at the other, and nearly entirely inclosed, it having on one side the brick wall of the boiler room, on the other side a wall of corrugated iron, at the 18-foot end, a wall of corrugated iron, and at the 33-foot end a brick wall for a distance of 20 feet and an open space the rest of the way. How high the ceiling or roof of this shed was is not stated in the evidence. In the wall at the 18-foot end was a door. Whether this door was open or not at the time of the explosion, the evidence does not show. Through the boiler room wall was a door, which was open at the time of the explosion. The flow of gas from the outlet was so strong that defendant's workman, Peavy, and the witness, Ahlers, standing 8 or 10 feet away from the outlet, had to come close to each other to make themselves heard to each other above its roar; and the current in striking a partition composed of 2-inch iron piping, some 16 feet away, caused it to vibrate.

The negligence which plaintiff charges against the defendants is in their having liberated this large quantity of gas in this shed, or, so-called, room, whereby the danger of ignition or explosion was created.

The Gas Company answers that this way of doing was not negligence since it was the usual way, and that plaintiff has failed to make out her case for the further reason that she does not show what caused the gas to ignite, and that most probably the ignition was through the negligence of Bradley himself in not having turned off the gas completely from under the boilers, so as to extinguish completely the flames under them, as Peavy had the right to assume had been done.

The gas which the Gas Company was thus liberating was natural gas, inodorous. It becomes highly combustible, or explosive, when mixed with air. This the Gas Company knew. The liberation of it created a danger, and therefore was negligence, unless unavoidably necessary, and unless accompanied by every reasonable precaution for guarding against the danger thus created.

That it was not unavoidably necessary is shown conclusively by the fact that the Gas Company could have installed a certain apparatus which it knew of and which it did install shortly after this explosion, and had not installed sooner merely to save expenses; and is shown further by the testimony of the witness Sipe, to the effect that a pipe could have been adapted to this outlet for conducting the gas out of the room or shed, to be harmlessly diffused in the open air. It is said by the Gas Company that pieces of corrugated iron had fallen out of the walls, and that the panes of glass in the windows were broken, so that the shed was at least 33 per cent. open. Granting this, the event showed the negligence of turning loose this large volume of gas in it -- partly open though it was.

And no precautions whatever were taken by Peavy, so far as the record shows. He and Bradley and the witness Ahlers were the only persons present, and Ahlers alone survived to testify. He says: That Bradley, who was in charge of the boilers, came and told him that the Gas Company's man had come. That he (Ahlers) was then at the lever which operated the compress, and that, as he knew that the compress would keep on operating for some five minutes after the fire had been extinguished under the boilers, he remained at his post for that length of time, and then walked to the place where Peavy was at the gas outlet. That in doing so he passed through the boiler room and saw that the handle of the valve for cutting off the gas from the boilers was in the position in which it is when the gas is cut off. He could not say of his own knowledge that it was cut off so tight that absolutely no gas at all could pass, but assumed that such was the case, basing himself on his knowledge of the careful manner in which Bradley usually did his work. That, when he got to where Peavy was, he and Peavy exchanged a few words, and that for doing so they had to come close to each other, as the roar of the escaping gas covered their voices, and that Peavy then went into the boiler room. That he (Ahlers), after a few moments, happened to notice that the gas was forming a mist on one of the corners of the room. That, seeing this, he instructed Bradley, who was near the door leading into the boiler room, to shut this door, and that Bradley at once set about carrying out this instruction, but that, just as he took hold of the door to pull it to, flames came out of the door, and he (Ahlers) rushed out the best way he could with his hands over his eyes. That Bradley, his clothes on fire, joined him outside, and begged him to put out the fire that was burning him. It is thus seen that Peavy did not even take the precaution of closing this boiler room door.

How the gas became ignited no one knows. Plaintiff alleges that it must have been by coming in contact with the heated surface of the furnace beneath the boilers, or else with some lingering flame under them, and that Peavy must have opened the furnace door. Defendants contend, and we think show, that gas will not ignite by contact with a heated surface no matter how hot, and contends that if any flame lingered under the boilers it was as the result of the negligence of Bradley in not closing the valve perfectly so as to shut off the gas completely.

To this suggestion of negligence plaintiff replies that the valves might have been defective, allowing sufficient gas to pass to keep alive a lingering flame.

The learned counsel for the Gas Company argue that the gas from the outlet in escaping from the shed would have sought the open space in the wall, rather than the door leading into the boiler room; and that, therefore, the gas which ignited in the boiler room must have come from the outlet under the boilers.

This argument overlooks the undisputed fact that the first persons to go into the boiler room after the explosion found the valve securely closed and no flame under the boilers; and it also overlooks the fact that whatever escaping gas might have fed the flame under the boilers and kept it agoing would have been consumed under the boilers and not escaped therefrom.

The evidence fails entirely to show that Bradley was guilty of contributory negligence. Very true he...