Brennan v. Arlington Gas Light Co.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1961 |
| Parties | Marjory E. BRENNAN et al. v. ARLINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Frederick A. McDermott, Boston, for plaintiffs.
Parker Brownell, Boston (Samuel Adams, Boston, with him), for defendants.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ.
This is an action of tort by Marjory E. Brennan and her husband Daniel A. Brennan to recover respectively for personal injuries and consequential damage caused by an explosion of gas in their home in Winchester on July 8, 1952. The defendants are Arlington Gas Light Company (gas company) and Conversions and Surveys, Inc. (conversions company). The plaintiffs allege in counts 1 and 2 of their substitute declaration negligence on the part of the gas company; in counts 5 and 6 negligence by the conversions company; in counts 3 and 4 the creation of a nuisance by the gas company; and in counts 7 and 8 the creation of a nuisance by the conversions company.
There was evidence that the plaintiffs owned a gas-oil combination cooking stove purchased in 1949 which had been used without repairs, serving or adjustment until May, 1952. It was a stove of 'conventional type' with burners on top and an oven which was heated by a 'separately controlled gas burner unit.' The fuel for the stove was manufactured gas supplied by the gas company.
On May 12, 1952, the gas company changed the gas supplied to its customers from manufactured to natural gas. The change necessitated certain adjustments of the home appliances in which manufactured gas had been used to make them suitable for use of the new gas. To make the conversions, the gas company employed the defendant conversions company as its agent and notified its customers not to use ove burners until its agents had completed the work of conversion. Natural gas has about twice the heating value of manufactured gas and requires more air to effect its proper combustion.
Early in June 'agents of the defendants' converted the burners on top of the plaintiffs' stove for the use of natural gas. Later in the month two other agents came to the house to 'fix the oven' and when they had finished one of them told Mrs. Brennan it was then 'perfectly all right' to use the oven. After their visit the oven was not used until July 8 and in the meantime 'no repairs, servicing or changes [were] made in the oven or the stove by Mrs. Brennan or anyone else.'
On July 8 Mrs. Brennan lit the oven burner and closed the oven door in order to preheat the oven for the roasting of a chicken. She noticed that the flame from the burner was a long yellow flame. Fifteen minutes later she opened the oven door and 'a big flash or burst of yellow fire came from the oven' and inflicted on Mrs. Brennan the injuries of which she complains. The occurrence was reported to the gas company and a man came and examined the stove. The next day two men came and worked upon it for about two hours. 'Under the conversion contract between the defendant corporations, * * * [the conversions company] would investigate a report of any such accident as the one in question, during a period which included the month of July, 1952, and if the work of conversion was found not to have been properly done, its agents would return and correct it.' 'If a burst of yellow flame comes from the oven when the oven door is opened after having been closed for fifteen minutes it would be due to the presence in the oven of unburned natural gas or other combustible gases resulting from the incomplete combustion of the natural gas.' Ignition of the unconsumed gas would be caused by the sudden inrush of 'atmospheric air.'
The physical changes necessary for conversion are accomplished by enlarging the holes or 'ports' through which the gas flows out of each burner; by the removal of plugs or 'spuds' which control the gas supplied to the burners and their replacement by new spuds with holes of a smaller diameter; and by changes in the 'air-intake cap' which controls the amount of 'primary' air to be mixed with the gas. Such changes are made by turning a perforated disc known as the 'shutter.' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LeBlanc v. Ford Motor Co.
...Mass. 387, 389, 73 N.E.2d 590; Poulin v. H. A. Tobey Lumber Corp., 337 Mass. 146, 148-149, 148 N.E.2d 277; Brennan v. Arlington Gas Light Co., 341 Mass. 679, 683, 171 N.E.2d 838. The Yardley case did not relieve LeBlanc of the burden of proving (see the Ricciutti case, 343 Mass. 347, 352, 1......
-
Carney v. Bereault
...Motor Co., 346 Mass. 225, 191 N.E.2d 301. See Pelland v. D'Allesandro, 321 Mass. 387, 389, 73 N.E.2d 590; Brennan v. Arlington Gas Light Co., 341 Mass. 679, 683, 171 N.E.2d 838. But, as we cautioned in the Yardley case '* * * [W]here the thing in question is subject to change by wear or cry......
-
Toppin v. Buzzards Bay Gas Co.
...not taken are to be considered.' Friese v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 324 Mass. 623, 629, 88 N.E.2d 1, 4. See Brennan v. Arlington Gas Light Co., 341 Mass. 679, 683, 171 N.E.2d 838. We do not agree with the defendant's contention that '[t]he auditor * * * should not have been permitted to conc......