Carlisle v. Union Public Service Co.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1933
• Docket Number: 31118.
• Citation: 137 Kan. 636,21 P.2d 395
• Parties: CARLISLE v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

21 P.2d 395

137 Kan. 636

CARLISLE v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE CO.

No. 31118.

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 6, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Natural gas is a highly inflammable dangerous substance, and a company engaged in transporting it owes a duty to so manage and conduct the appliances used by it in such transportation as not to endanger life or property.

2. A natural gas regulator was located in a busy driveway. This regulator was hit by a truck. This broke a joint and allowed gas to escape. The gas escaped into the vault of a toilet where it collected and was ignited by plaintiff striking a match, and plaintiff was injured. Held that the negligent placing of the regulator in the driveway was the proximate cause of the injury.

3. In order for one to be liable for the negligent locating of a gas regulator, it is not necessary that defendant could have reasonably anticipated the particular injury that resulted but it is sufficient if some injury should have been reasonably anticipated.

4. The fact that a gas regulator, the negligent placing of which caused an injury, was located on the service line and on the land of consumer, does not relieve the gas company from liability for an injury resulting from its negligent location.

5. In order for a judgment to be set aside and reversed on account of the excessive amount of the verdict, it must appear that the verdict is so large as to shock the conscience of the court.

Appeal from District Court, Jewell County; William R. Mitchell Judge.

Action by Howard Wayne Carlisle, a minor, by Vivian Carlisle, his mother and next friend, against the Union Public Service Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

R. L Hamilton, of Beloit, for appellant.

D. M. McCarthy, of Mankato, for appellee.

SMITH Justice.

This was an action for personal injuries due to an explosion of natural gas. Judgment was for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Defendant is engaged in the business of distributing natural gas for domestic consumption at Jewell City, Kan. The gas is transported across the country under a pressure of from 180 pounds to 230 pounds to the square inch. Before entering the town, the distributing company, which is the defendant here, reduces the pressure at the city gates to about 5 pounds to the square inch. Before the gas is piped into the various devices about the city, it is necessary to further reduce the pressure to a few ounces to the square inch. This is done by an instrument called a regulator. This is a device shaped something like a saucer. It is always installed somewhere between the point where the service pipe is attached to the supply line and the burner tips. The method of installing it is that the service pipe is laid to the place where the regulator is to be located and there a pipe is run up and connected onto one side of the regulator. From the other side of the regulator, a pipe is then run down to the bottom of the trench and from there into the building. It will be seen that there were two pipes leading into the regulator, one carrying gas under a pressure of about 5 pounds to the square inch and the other carrying gas under a pressure of a few ounces to the square inch. This regulator supported on these two pipes was about 18 inches to 2 feet above the ground.

The explosion in question occurred in the rear of a restaurant which was supplied with gas by defendant. The supply line in this case was laid in the alley in the rear of the restaurant. This restaurant building in question does not extend to the alley, but has a space in the rear about 70 feet long and about 25 feet wide. The buildings on each side extend to the alley. This alley is a busy one, and it was well known in the city that trucks frequently back into this vacant space to turn around and drive into it to deliver goods to the restaurant. In the rear of this vacant space, and about 14 feet north of the southwest corner of it, and about 5 feet from the alley line, a building used as an outside toilet stood. This building had been erected over a pit dug in the ground. This toilet was used by the members of the restaurant keeper's family, his employees and customers.

The service line for the restaurant was attached to the supply line in the alley and laid in a trench just south of the toilet. The regulator was installed, as has been seen, about 18 inches to 2 feet above the ground and just to the south and about a foot away from the toilet. About two weeks before the explosion which is the basis of this action, young lady started to use the toilet in question between 9 and 10 o'clock at night. Just before she entered the building she struck a match. An explosion occurred and the building caught fire. The fire department was called and succeeded in putting the fire out. An examination disclosed that the pipes leading into the regulator hall been hit by a truck backing into it. This broke the connection on the alley side of the line, and permitted gas to escape under a pressure of about 5 pounds to the square inch. The company was immediately notified of what had occurred, and two men were sent to the scene of the explosion. These men discovered what had happened, and reported all the circumstances to the manager in charge of all operations and the superintendent of construction. The regulator was replaced in the same location in the same manner as it had been.

The record discloses that about two weeks after this explosion, and about two days before the injury sued on, the regulator was again hit by a truck and the connection broken on the side toward the alley.

The plaintiff was a minor, and was visiting his uncle, who was operating the restaurant in question. About two weeks after the fire just described, plaintiff just about noon retired to the toilet in question. While sitting on the seat there with his clothing partly removed he struck a match to light a cigarette. An explosion followed which wrecked the building and threw plaintiff through the closed door. He was burned from the hips to the lower ribs, his face and neck were burned, the flesh on the inside of his lips, his ears and his hands and arms to the elbow were burned.

This action followed. The petition described the situation about as it has been set out here. The negligence pleaded was the manner and place of installing the regulator. The answer of defendant was a general denial. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and answered a special question, as follows:

"No. 2. If you find for the plaintiff then state of what the negligence of the defendant consisted. Answer: Regulator should have been moved, public nuisance."

Judgment was given accordingly.

The first point urged by defendant is that its motion for judgment on the pleading and opening statement should have been sustained. The argument for this is that it was admitted that the explosion occurred when plaintiff struck a match to light a cigarette. It is pointed out that it is against the law for a person in control of premises to permit a minor to smoke on premises controlled by him; that the smoking of the cigarette made plaintiff an accessory to the act of permitting the smoking--therefore the plaintiff was injured as the result of his own unlawful act and cannot recover. The trouble with that argument is that the record discloses that the uncle had told the boy not to smoke, and at the stage of the trial when the motion was made neither the pleadings nor the opening statement disclosed that the uncle even knew that the plaintiff smoked.

The other ground upon which defendant urges that the motion for judgment on the pleadings and opening statement should have been sustained is that they disclose that the alleged act of negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury.

The train of events is pointed out as follows: Placing the regulator; truck hitting regulator; gas escaping; match struck; injury. Defendant insists that the truck hitting the regulator was the proximate cause of the injury, and that defendant had nothing to do with that. It argues that this act of the truck was an independent and intervening cause from the act pleaded and found to be negligence, and that this excuses defendant from liability. But can this be said? The defendant was engaged in the business of transporting a highly dangerous and inflammable substance. Its duty was to so handle this substance as to protect the public from injury by an explosion. See Luengene v. Power Co., 86 Kan. 866, 122 P. 1032; Hashman v. Gas Co., 83 Kan. 328, 111 P. 468; Carlson v. Development Co., 103 Kan. 464, 173 P. 910, L.R.A. 1918F, 318, and House v. Wichita Gas Co., 137 Kan. page 332, 20 P.2d 479. Was this duty performed when the regulator was placed where it was placed and in the manner in which it was placed there?

Of course, if the truck had not hit the regulator, this particular chain of events would not have occurred, but the event in the chain that involved a breach of duty was the placing of the regulator in a spot where it was a target for the trucks that used the alley and came into the area at the rear of the restaurant on business. In Walmsley v....