Greed v. Manufacturers' Light & Heat Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1913 |
| Docket Number | 131 |
| Citation | 86 A. 95,238 Pa. 248 |
| Parties | Greed, Appellant, v. Manufacturers' Light and Heat Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 16, 1912
Appeal, No. 131, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Washington Co., Feb. T., 1912, No. 1058, on verdict for defendant by direction in case of Louise Greed v Manufacturers' Ligh and Heat Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's husband. Before McILVAINE, P.J.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant by direction.
Errors assigned were (1, 2, 3) rulings on evidence referred to in the opinion of the Supreme Court; (4 and 5) in giving binding instructions for the defendant.
John C Bane, with him H. B. Hughes and B. G. Hughes, for appellant. -- The proof of the declarations of the decedent as proffered by the plaintiff should have been admitted as part of the res gestae: Com. v. Werntz, 161 Pa. 591.
The case of Schmeer v. Gas Light Company, 147 N.Y. 529 (42 N.E. Repr. 202), is direct authority for submitting the case to the jury on the question of defendant's negligence.
R. W. Irwin, with him James A. Wiley, for appellee. -- The decedent's declarations were not admissible as part of the res gestae: Keefer v. Life Insurance Co., 201 Pa. 448; Waldele v. N.Y.C. & H.R.R.R. Co., 95 N.Y. 274; Merkle v. Bennington Twp., 58 Mich. 156 (24 N.W. 776); Com. v. Hackett, 84 Mass. 136; Rowell v. Lowell, 77 Mass. 420; Stone v. Segur, 93 Mass. 568; Whitaker v. Eighth Ave. R.R. Co., 51 N.Y. 295; Roche v. Brooklyn, Etc., R. Co., 105 N.Y. 294 (11 N.E. Repr. 630); Leistritz v. Am. Zylonite Co., 154 Mass. 382 (28 N.E. Repr. 294).
Defendant's only duty upon discovering a leak was to shut off the gas and notify the parties and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that they did not do so: Soles v. Natural Gas Company, 48 Pa.Super. 84; Flint v. Gloucester Gas Light Co., 85 Mass. 343.
Before BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
A verdict was directed for the defendant company because, in the judgment of the court below, no negligence on its part had been shown; and it is clear from the remarks of the learned trial judge at the close of the testimony, when he was asked to direct the verdict returned, that he had, upon due reflection, concluded that the motion for a nonsuit should have prevailed.
The plaintiff and her husband, at the time of the gas explosion which resulted in his death, occupied the southern half of a double house. The northern half or apartment, except the room in which the explosion occurred, had been leased by the owner to George Dager, but he and his family had not yet occupied it. Under an agreement with the landlord, the room in which the gas escaped was to be added to the southern apartment after April 1, 1911. In pursuance of this agreement, he had locked the door between it and the remainder of the northern apartment and had left the door between it and the southern apartment either unlocked, or locked with the key in the hands of the deceased, the tenant of the southern apartment. The gas for that apartment was supplied by the defendant company, and it was to supply gas to the northern apartment. Each had its own gas pipes and meter. The meter in the northern apartment was set on February 10, 1911. About 2 o'clock in the afternoon of that day Mrs. Dager went to the house, and, finding the gas turned off, turned it on to enable her to heat water. About three hours afterward, having discovered that gas was escaping in the room referred to, she promptly shut off the flow and directed a woman who was with her to notify the parties occupying the southern apartment that there was a leak in the room which they had leased. She directed a plumber who was working for her to stop the leak. He went over to the southern apartment and found the deceased at home. They both went up to the room in which the gas was escaping, and just as the deceased reached the door the explosion occurred. It does not appear that the defendant company had any knowledge that this room had been leased to him. This, however, is immaterial.
In a case like this negligence is never presumed from the mere happening of the accident. He who alleges it must affirmatively prove it, or point to such circumstances as naturally and reasonably lead to the conclusion of carelessness on the part of the accused as the proximate cause of the occurrence which resulted in the injuries complained of. Tested by this rule, what was developed in the presentation of plaintiff's case which justified any inference of negligence on the part of the defendant company? It had nothing to do with the installation of the gas pipes. They were placed in the building by the owner or tenant of the property and the duty of the gas company was to supply gas to the occupants when requested. It had not installed the pipes; it had no control over...
To continue reading
Request your trial