Groff v. Charleston-Dunbar Natural Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 03 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | 6885. |
| Parties | GROFF v. CHARLESTON-DUNBAR NATURAL GAS CO. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted January 28, 1931.
Syllabus by the Court.
Gas company, having exclusive use of another's pipe line to conduct gas, owed consumer duty to reasonably inspect and maintain line.
When a gas company has the exclusive use of a pipe line not its own to conduct gas to a consumer, the company assumes the duty of reasonable inspection and maintenance of the line while it is so used.
Error to Circuit Court, Kanawha County.
Action by George Fisher Groff, Jr., against the Charleston-Dunbar Natural Gas Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and new trial granted.
Payne Minor & Bouchelle and A. M. Belcher, all of Charleston, for plaintiff in error.
Harold A. Ritz, Rummel, Blagg & Stone, and B. J. Pettigrew, all of Charleston, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff was severely injured on March 26, 1929, by a gas explosion within his father's home. The gas was furnished by the defendant. The plaintiff sued to recover damages, and the jury found in favor of the defendant.
The Groff house is on a lot in the Kanawha Terrace addition. It is across the public road from a gas main of the defendant. In 1923, the owners of the addition were given permission by defendant to tap this main in order that gas might be brought to consumers within the addition. They constructed a line as follows: A 2-inch pipe runs from the main under the road to near the property line of the addition; the pipe then comes to the surface and turns at a right angle for about 4 feet upon which a regulator is installed; from the end of this exposed 4 feet, a 3-inch pipe extends at a right angle underground, up a hill for approximately 125 feet. The joint connecting the exposed 4 feet with the 3-inch pipe is a "swinging joint" to take care of any play in the line. The grade of the hill is about 22 1/2 degrees. The Groff house was built on this hill about 1924, and was supplied with gas by a 1 1/4-inch "service" pipe. This pipe tapped the 3-inch line with a rigid connection about 18 inches under ground at a point 85 feet from the regulator. The 3-inch line at this point was 3 feet from the house wall under which the service pipe entered the cellar. The line from the defendant's main into the addition was constructed after advising with, and under the inspection of the defendant. There was no meter on this line. It remained the property of the owners of the addition, but was used by defendant to transmit gas directly to the Groff house in which defendant maintained a meter. The soil on the hillside in the vicinity of the house is loose, unstable, and inclined to slip. A slip had occurred and piles had been driven along the foot of the hill even before the gas line was constructed. Since then a retaining wall has been built along the front of the Groff lot, and also in front of, and within a few inches of, the regulator. A slip in the Groff terrace was easily visible at the time of the explosion. The soil along the 3-inch line was overgrown with weeds and underbrush.
On the morning of March 26th, employees of the defendant repaired a leak in the regulator. While at this work they broke the core of the regulator, and in order to replace it, sawed the exposed 2-inch pipe in two, afterwards reuniting it with a "dresser coupling." They finished their work between noon and 1 p. m., when they applied the soapsuds test and found no leaks on the exposed 2-inch line. The gas in the house had been cut entirely off during the work. After the repairing was finished, the gas was turned on in the stove as a test. It burned strongly and was soon turned off. The day was warm, the doors and windows were kept open, and no fire was required for any purpose until 5 p. m., when the gas was burned just long enough to make coffee, the family eating a supper otherwise cold. The doors and windows were closed shortly after 6 p. m. There is evidence that the gas was not turned on again. About 11 p. m. a cigarette lighter was ignited in the kitchen, and a terrific explosion followed, demolishing the house and injuring the plaintiff, as well as all others in the house.
The regulator was closed shortly after the explosion. Employees of defendant cut the service pipe in the basement of the house the next morning. They applied a pressure pump to the part of that pipe leading to the meter, and no leak was disclosed. The pump was then applied to the section of the pipe connecting with the 3-inch line and no pressure was recorded, showing that there was a leak between the pump and the regulator. They followed the course of the 3-inch line up the hill from the regulator by gouging into the soil with an ordinary iron bar (showing the loose condition of the soil). They dug down to the pipe at several places along the line but found no leak. However, at the exact point of its connection with the service pipe they found a crack on the lower side of the latter from an eighth to a fourth inch wide and about an inch in length. There was a sewer line running from the house within a few inches of this crack, and the evidence shows that gas escaping there could have gotten into the house through or along this sewer or along the service pipe. No other breach in the pipes was found.
It does not appear from the evidence whether this break was old or recent. If old (which is unlikely), it presumably was produced by a downward movement of the 3-inch pipe. If recent, it could have been caused by such a movement or by the explosion. If by such a movement, either the work on the regulator or a general slip or subsidence of the hillside soil was responsible. If by the explosion, there should have been indications at or near the break that the service pipe had been forced up hill. If there were no such indications (and there is testimony that there were none), and the pipe remained rigid even after the explosion, these facts would point to a slip of the 3-inch line.
It is the theory of the defendant, as expressed in the instructions given in its behalf, particularly Nos. 5 and 12, that it is not liable unless it was under express contract to maintain the line running to the Groff property from its main, or that its workmen had actual knowledge of the break in the service pipe. Neither of these theories correctly states the defendant's liability. As well contend that defendant would not be liable had it delivered gas in drums not its own to the Groff house, and an injury to plaintiff had resulted from defendant's negligent use of the drums. The fact that the owners of the addition had not sold or leased the line to defendant is not significant in determining its duty. The test in such cases is use, not ownership. The defendant had the exclusive use of the line for delivering gas to the Groff house. For the purpose of this delivery it made the line its own. Defendant relies strongly upon a letter which it wrote to John Walder, one of the owners of the addition in 1923, which contained the following provision: "It is to be expressly understood that if you install lines to this addition, that the line running to the same, from our main line shall be and remain your property." That letter might have some bearing if Walder had been the agent of Mr. Groff, but Mr. Groff dealt directly with the defendant, and is not shown even to have known of the letter. The defendant transmitted its gas through the addition line with the consent of the addition owners. Use of the line under that consent gave the defendant full possession of the line. It could not thus appropriate the line and be rid of care for it. Responsibility is inseparable from the transmission of gas. Proper concern for humanity and property binds a gas company in delivering gas, "to that degree of care which the nature of the article it deals in, and the consequences to be apprehended from an accident, reasonably call for." ...
To continue reading
Request your trial