Cochran v. Philadelphia & R. T. R. Co.
Citation | 39 A. 296,184 Pa. 565 |
Decision Date | 07 February 1898 |
Docket Number | 358 |
Parties | James S. Cochran and John Cochran, trading as James S. Cochran & Bro., Appellants, v. Philadelphia & Reading Terminal Railroad Company |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 20, 1898
Appeal, No. 358, Jan. T., 1897, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 505, sustaining demurrer. Affirmed.
Demurrer to statement.
Plaintiffs' statement was as follows:
On the 1st day of December, A.D. 1893, and for several years prior thereto, plaintiffs were the owners of a mill property at the southeast corner of Tenth and Columbia avenue, and extending east to Hutchinson street, in the city of Philadelphia. In this mill property plaintiffs had a large quantity of stock goods, machinery, boiler, engine, shafting and fixtures and they were engaged in the manufacture of yarns. In operating said mill plaintiffs made use of the gas furnished by the city of Philadelphia, supplied by pipes leading from the gas main in Columbia avenue into said mill. In front of said mill property on Columbia avenue, there was provided and existed a mode of access to said gas pipe leading from the main into said mill, whereby the flow of gas into said mill could be turned on or off by means of a key inserted into the stop-off of the gas pipe, and this key was used from the surface of the street and reached the gas pipe through a wooden pipe leading from the surface of the street down to the gas pipe. The defendant, the Philadelphia and Reading Terminal Railroad Company, desired to make said Columbia avenue cross its railroad between Ninth and Tenth streets, over a bridge instead of at the surface grade, and in furtherance of that object the city of Philadelphia passed an ordinance dated the 26th day of December, A.D. 1890, to change the grade of said Columbia avenue (ordinance of 1890, page 423), a copy of which is as follows:
After the passage of said ordinance the defendant undertook to make the said change of grade, and did by its servants and employees change the said grade of Columbia avenue, in front of said plaintiffs' property, by making a gradual rise in said grade from said Tenth street to said Hutchinson street eastward. This change of grade was made by the servants and employees of the defendant, filling up the bed of said Columbia avenue with dirt, soil and refuse, gradually elevating it, from Tenth street eastward until at said Hutchinson street it was elevated about twelve and a half feet above its prior grade. The said servants and employees of the defendant in doing said work, during the months of March and April, 1892, so improperly, carelessly and negligently filled in the said bed of Columbia avenue that they utterly failed and neglected to keep said access to said gas pipe in the street free, open and unobstructed, but, on the contrary, recklessly and carelessly filled up, obstructed, closed and covered up the same with the said dirt, soil and refuse to the depth of several feet, so that no access to said gas pipe could be had, nor the location of said stop-off be discovered. The said work of changing the grade of Columbia avenue, in front of the plaintiffs' property, and the filling in of the bed of said street by the defendant, was carried on continuously during the greater part of the months of March and April, 1892.
On the first day of December, 1893, about eight o'clock P.M., a fire broke out in the cellar of the plaintiffs' mill, which cellar was then occupied by a tenant. In a few minutes the heat from the fire melted the gas pipe off at the meter in the cellar, which permitted the gas to flow from the main pipe in the street into the building, and which flow of gas fed the flames. An effort was then almost immediately made by the plaintiffs to stop the flow of gas by turning it off at the stopcock in the sidewalk, but the plaintiffs then for the first time discovered that it had been covered up by the defendant while doing the work of filling in the bed of Columbia avenue. In consequence of said covering up it was impossible to discover where the said stop-cock had been originally located.
And the plaintiffs aver that the said fire could have been and would have been extinguished before said mill property and its contents were totally destroyed, but for the fact that said fire was fed and increased, and shortly became beyond control, by reason of the flow of gas through the said pipe leading from the main on Columbia avenue into the said mill, and which flow of gas it was impossible to stop on account of the access to said pipe from the surface of the street having been destroyed, buried and obliterated by the said negligence of the defendant's servants. In consequence whereof, and by reason whereof, the said mill property of plaintiffs, with the stock and machinery therein, were entirely and totally destroyed. Plaintiff's loss by fire on said building, stock and machinery amounted to the sum of $193,696.28, while the amount of insurance obtained by the plaintiffs on the same was $153,591.50, and plaintiffs lost by said fire the sum of $40,104.78, for which they received no insurance.
But for the said carelessness and negligence of defendant's servants and employees the said flow of gas could have been and would have been turned off from said mill and the fire extinguished before the loss by said fire had reached the amount of insurance.
Plaintiffs aver that they are injured by the said carelessness and negligence of defendant's servants and employees to the amount of $40,104.78, therefore they bring suit, etc.
The defendant demurred to the statement for the following reasons:
1. That the said statement does not allege or show any duty incumbent upon the defendant to keep the access to the gas pipe mentioned in the statement free, open and unobstructed.
2. Because any duty with respect to the said gas pipe and the access thereto was a duty of the city of Philadelphia.
3. Because the work of changing the grade of Columbia avenue between Ninth and Tenth streets was of a municipal character, and the duty of performing the same was that of the city of Philadelphia.
4. Because, supposing that there was any duty on the part of the defendant with respect to the said gas pipe and the access thereto, which the defendant omitted to perform, it would be answerable in damages at the time of the alleged nonperformance, and then only for the ordinary and proximate consequences arising therefrom, such as the cost of restoring access to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. Lee
... ... N.W. 732; Deisenrieter v. Kraus-Merkel Malting Co., ... 72 N.W. 735; Cole v. Ger. S. & L. Soc., 124 F. 113; ... Laidlaw v. Sage, supra; Cochran v. Railway Co., 39 ... A. 296; Koch v. Fox, 75 N.Y.S. 913; Niles v. Ry ... Co., 43 N.Y.S. 751; Mo. P. Ry. Co. v. Columbia, ... 69 P. 338; ... ...
-
Fullmer v. New York Central & Hudson River Ry. Company
...3 Am. & Eng. R.R. Cases (N.S.), 632; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Southwick, 16 Ind.App. 486 (44 N.E. Repr. 263); Cochran v. Phila., etc., R.R Co., 184 Pa. 565; Snyder v. Penna. R.R. Co., 205 Pa. It cannot be said that the negligence in not having a switch target concurred with the negligen......
-
Trusty v. Patterson
...Fletcher W. Stites, with him Emanuel Weiss, George Eves and C. H. Ruhl, for appellants, cited: Jaras v. Wright, 263 Pa. 486; Cochran v. R.R., 184 Pa. 565; v. Contracting Co., 238 Pa. 443; Griffin v. Ry., 67 Pa.Super. 392; S.S. Pass. Ry. v. Trich, 117 Pa. 390; Marsh v. Giles, 211 Pa. 17; Woo......
-
Cochran v. Philadelphia & R. T. R. Co.
... 39 A. 296184 Pa.St. 565 COCHRAN et al. v. PHILADELPHIA & R. T. R. CO. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Feb. 7, 1898. Appeal from court of common pleas, Philadelphia county. Action by John S. Cochran and another, trading as John S. Cochran & Bro., against the Philadelphia and Reading Terminal......