Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Perrego

• Decision Date: 26 March 1896
• Citation: 43 N.E. 306,144 Ind. 350
• Parties: CONSUMERS' GAS TRUST CO. v. PERREGO.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

144 Ind. 350

43 N.E. 306

CONSUMERS' GAS TRUST CO.

v.PERREGO.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 26, 1896.

Appeal from superior court, Marion county; P. W. Bartholomew, Judge.

Action brought by Frances Perrego against the Consumers' Gas Trust Company and others to recover for personal injuries caused by an explosion of natural gas. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. A motion for new trial having been denied, defendant Consumers' Gas Trust Company appealed. Affirmed.Lamb & Hill, for appellant. Carson & Thompson, for appellee.

HOWARD, J.

This action was by appellee against appellant and others to recover for injuries received from an explosion of natural gas. It is alleged in the complaint that on the day of the accident, February 14, 1893, and for a long time prior thereto, the appellee was lawfully an occupant of the dwelling house at the southeast corner of Illinois and Twenty-Sixth streets, in the city of Indianapolis; that during the whole period of such occupancy the appellant was engaged in drilling and mining for natural gas, and conveying the same to said city by means of high and low pressure mains, service pipes, and regulators laid along and in said Illinois street, immediately in front of and adjacent to said dwelling house so occupied by appellee; that said natural gas so conducted along and through said mains, pipes, and regulators, subjected the same to a great strain and pressure, to wit, often of 150 pounds to the square inch; that the said gas is of highly dangerous, penetrating, elusive, and explosive nature, and requires great care, caution, and perfectly tight mains, pipes, and regulators, in order to secure safety in its management and control, all of which was well known to the appellant; that the appellant so carelessly, negligently, and unskillfully constructed and maintained its said mains, pipes, and regulators that they leaked, and permitted said gas to escape from control, in large quantities, for many weeks, in the immediate vicinity of appellee's said dwelling; that such escaping gas percolated and penetrated through the loose sand and gravel until it reached and accumulated in large quantities within the foundation and under said dwelling house, all without the knowledge or fault of appellee; and that the same became ignited without any fault or negligence of appellee, thereby causing a violent explosion within and under said dwelling, completely demolishing the same, destroying the personal property of appellee, and causing her great physical and mental pain and injury. To this complaint a general denial was filed, and the cause was submitted to a jury for trial. On a verdict for appellee, judgment was entered in her favor for $6,000, and this appeal followed. The only error assigned is that the court overruled the motion for a new trial.

The ground was frozen over solid at the time of the explosion, and the leak from which the gas escaped into the earth was in the large main, at a point where the main was covered by a sleeve. It appears that in the fall and winter of 1887 the Broad Ripple Natural Gas Company laid its high-pressure main line from the city of Indianapolis northward, along the west side of Illinois street, to the wells from which the gas was obtained. The pipe was an eight-inch, screw-joint, wrought-iron pipe. In constructing the line the company had a force of men laying pipe from the city north, and another force laying pipe from the field to the city, and those two forces met a little south of the house under which the explosion afterwards took place. At the point of intersection the pipes could not be screwed together, but the ends were brought up close, and connected by a sleeve. When the two ends were brought together the sleeve was fitted over them, and calked with lead. The appellant purchased the Broad Ripple line in July, 1889; and the main question for decision is whether appellant was careless and negligent in the purchase, inspection, and maintenance of the line during the three years and a half from said purchase until the accident, in February, 1893. The evidence submitted to the jury on this question is exceedingly voluminous. It appears that there was no connection by pipe between appellant's main and appellee's house. The latter was supplied with gas by the Indianapolis Natural Gas Company, which company had its gas main also in Illinois street, and close to appellant's line. The location of the sleeve on appellant's pipe, where the gas leaked, was across the street, and about 90 feet distant from appellee's dwelling. The sleeve was smooth on the inside, as was the pipe on the outside. The inner diameter of the sleeve was an inch and a half greater than the outer diameter of the pipe over which it fitted. This open space was filled in with lead. There was evidence that there had been a leak at this point, and that the gas escaped through the earth from the first laying of the pipe, six years before the explosion. It is the theory of the appellee that during all these years the gas permeated the surrounding earth; that it escaped more readily from the surface during the summer, but that, when the ground was frozen over, the gas was forced to greater distances under the hardened crust. At the time of the purchase of the line by the appellant a test of the line was made, by turning on full gas pressure, being nearly or quite 300 pounds to the square inch. It is argued that there being a leak, even at that time, under the sleeve, the great pressure thus turned on still further opened or displaced the lead between the pipe and the sleeve, and, consequently, that the escape of gas was greater after that test.

Counsel for appellant, in arguing that there was no negligence in the purchase, care, and maintenance of the pipe line, contend (1) that appellant employed, as superintendent of its pipe lines and gas wells, a man of large experience in such work; (2) that before the purchase from the Broad Ripple Company the line was carefully tested, and found in good condition; (3) that appellant did not know, and had no means of knowing, without digging up its entire line, of the existence of the sleeve in question; (4) that after the inspection and purchase of the line the appellant, by its line walkers and other employés, kept up a careful supervision and inspection of its pipe lines, including that on Illinois street, almost every day, up to the time of the explosion; (5) that the line was properly laid, and the sleeve and joint were properly and skillfully constructed; and (6) that the “appellant did not...