Castner v. Tacoma Gas & Fuel Co.

• Decision Date: 19 January 1923
• Docket Number: 17109.
• Citation: 212 P. 283,123 Wash. 236
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CASTNER v. TACOMA GAS & FUEL CO. et al.

212 P. 283

123 Wash. 236

CASTNER v. TACOMA GAS & FUEL CO. et al.

No. 17109.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 19, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County.

Two separate actions by H. L. Castner, as administrator of the estate of Cora E. Castner, deceased, and as administrator of the estate of Melvin H. Castner, deceased, against the Tacoma Gas & Fuel Company, a corporation, and another. Judgment of nonsuit at the close of plaintiff's evidence in each case, and plaintiff appeals. Judgment affirmed in the first case, and in second case reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Govnor Teats, Leo Teats, and Ralph Teats, all of Tacoma, for appellant.

Grosscup & Morrow and Chas. A. Wallace, all of Tacoma, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

On January 27, 1921, at about 6 o'clock in the evening, the home owned by Melvin H. Castner in South Tacoma, occupied by the owner and his mother, Cora E. Castner, was demolished by an internal explosion, in which both mother and son received injuries from which they thereafter died.

Appellant H. L. Castner, as administrator of the estate of Cora E Castner, brought an action against the Tacoma Gas & Fuel Company and D. J. Young, superintendent of the company, on behalf of the two surviving children of the deceased, for her wrongful death and for reimbursement in the sums paid for her funeral expenses. He also brought an action as administrator of the estate of Melvin H. Castner to recover for his funeral expenses and for the value of the property destroyed. Both actions were based upon the theory that the explosion was caused by leaking gas from the mains owned and controlled by the gas company, and that the leak was the result of the negligence of the gas company. The cases were tried separately in the court below, and in each case at the close of the plaintiff's evidence a motion for a nonsuit was granted. The cases were consolidated for the purpose of this appeal.

The evidence shows that gas was installed in the house destroyed by the explosion in 1911; that it was discontinued in May 1913, at which time the meter was removed; and that, after the removal of the meter, gas was not used by the occupants of the house. The respondent company maintained a gas main in the street upon which the house faced, and a service pipe extended underground from the main to the northwest corner of the house and for a foot or so thereunder, coming to the surface of the ground under the house. At this point, above the surface of the ground, there was a cut-off value attached by an elbow and reducer, and to this there was also attached a governor, where a meter was installed when service was being rendered the house; beyond the governor the pipe extended up through the floor of the house into the kitchen. There is evidence that, when the company cut off the gas, it did so by closing the valve under the house, although there was a similar valve where the service pipe tapped the main. This latter valve was not closed until some time after the explosion. The day after the explosion, officers from the police department went to the place and there found a broken gas pipe, which the evidence tended to show was a part of above described pipe. The evidence also tended to show that the break in the pipe for about two-thirds of its circumference was an old break, and that the remainder was fresh. This break was at a point at the elbow which connects to the valve and about a foot toward the street from the governor.

Only the two persons injured were in the house at the time, so there is no direct evidence as to what occurred inside. The evidence shows, however, that Mrs. Castner had been visiting some friends in the afternoon and returned to her home to prepare dinner for herself and her son at about 5:30 o'clock. The son, Melvin, came out from Tacoma about 6 o'clock, leaving a street car about one-half block from the house. As he came up the street, his mother was standing in the doorway and called something to him, to which witnesses testify he replied: 'Yes, what is the matter?' He hurried to the house and went inside with his mother. Within a few minutes, a tremendous explosion occurred; the entire house being forced into the air in a sheet of flame, falling back in a tumbled heap. Windows in houses at some distance were shattered. Neighbors who immediately rushed to the ruins found Mrs. Castner terribly mangled and injured with her clothing on fire. The fire was extinguished, but she died almost immediately. The son was taken to a hospital, where he died early the following morning without giving any explanation of the explosion except to say at one time, 'It must have been gas.' On the arrival of the neighbors on the scene, gas was escaping from the broken pipes, and all the witnesses testified to smelling it. A neighbor testified that there had been a strong smell of illuminating gas in her garage that afternoon and that the wind was blowing directly from the Castner home in that direction. There was evidence also tending to show that the gas company gave no attention to the service pipe subsequent to the time of the removal of the meter. There was a dispute in the evidence as to the ownership and control of the service pipe, but there is little dispute that the gas company, when it shut off the gas from these premises, shut it off at the valve next to the meter and not at the curb, and that it was using the pipe at the time the accident occurred as a storage...