Guile v. La Crosse Gas & Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1911
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: GUILE v. LA CROSSE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

145 Wis. 157

130 N.W. 234

GUILE

v.LA CROSSE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 21, 1911.

Dissenting Opinion March 15, 1911.

Appeal from Circuit Court, La Crosse County; A. H. Reid, Judge.

Action by Anna Guile, as executrix of the will of Henry Marquardt, deceased, against the La Crosse Gas & Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Marshall, J., dissenting.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff through an explosion of a mixture of gas and air in the purifying house of the defendant's gas plant. It is claimed that the explosion was caused by the negligence of the defendant.

The defendant made its gas from coal. The gas is extracted from the coal by applying heat to the retort in which the coal is placed. When the gas has been extracted from a charge of coal in a retort, and it is desired to recharge the retort with a fresh supply of coal, a torch is used to light the gas remaining in the retort and coke. From the retorts the gas is conducted to the four purifying boxes in the purifying house, after undergoing processes which are not material to this case. These boxes are between 11 and 12 feet in width and between 14 and 15 in length. Along the upper edge of the purifying boxes was a trough 12 or 14 inches deep around the whole edge of the box. A flange along the edge of the covers of the boxes fitted into the trough. Water poured into the troughs sealed the boxes, and prevented the escape of the gas from the boxes. The boxes extended below the floor, and projected about a foot above the floor of the purifying house. They were placed in a row lengthwise of the boxes and of the purifying house, and were filled with oxide of iron, mixed with shavings, to remove sulphur hydrogen from the gas passing through. The door into the purifying house was in the east wall of the building opposite the space between the two center boxes. Tar and other foreign substances were removed from the gas while it passed from the retorts to the gas reservoirs. The purifying house was lighted by electricity. A switch outside of the building near the door controlled the three lights on the one circuit in the building. One of the lights, near the door and also near a gauge, had a key switch in the socket, which could be reached from the floor, and which could control this light if the current was turned on through the outside switch. The other two lights were without such socket key switches, and were out of reach. Whenever the retorts are overcharged, so that gas is produced more rapidly than it can be handled in the purifying boxes, when the gas holder sticks and cannot receive the gas from the purifying boxes, or when friction in the pipes or stoppages therein produce an overpressure in the purifying boxes, this overpressure forces the water from the troughs of the boxes, and allows the gas to escape into the room of the purifying house. This is known as a “blow-out.” The overpressure of gas in the purifying boxes may be temporary or permanent. If temporary, the troughs are refilled with water and the box thus sealed again. If permanent, other measures must be taken to relieve the pressure to enable the production of gas to go on. There was evidence in the case that a mixture of gas and air in the proportions of one to seven or eight would be very explosive, and might be exploded by the spark produced by breaking an electric current with a key switch, such as was in use on the light near the gauge in the purifying house.

The accident happened between 11:30 p. m. and midnight on May 19, 1906. Plaintiff had worked for the defendant for about 15 months as laborer and fireman and 3 or 4 days before the accident he had been made head fireman. As head fireman he had charge of the works, and had two other firemen under him, and had direct control of the charging of the retorts. The retorts had been charged, and the firemen were about to eat lunch. The plaintiff went out of the retort house to the meter room, and noticed that the meter indicated that gas was not going into the holder, but was coming from it. On looking into the engine room, he found everything all right there, but, on going out of doors, he heard a noise in the purifying house, which meant that gas was escaping because of a blow-out. The plaintiff testified that, when he became assured that there was a blow-out, he went into the retort house and told the firemen of it, and directed them to bring some water. They ran out, and he took a pail, filled it with water from a barrel in the retort house, ran with it to the purifying house, and poured the water into the seal of the box which had the blow-out. When the men came in with the pails of water, he showed them where to pour it, and told them to get more. They went out, and he, needing light, felt for the switch near the door, turned the key, and immediately an explosive flash followed. The evidence showed that the side walls of the purifying house were blown out and down, the roof fell upon the boxes and caught fire from the burning gas which was escaping from the box which blew out, and the plaintiff was caught under the roof, and severely injured and burned. The two assistant firemen, Wagner and Dumke, testified that the plaintiff came into the retort house as they were preparing to eat lunch, told them there was a blow-out, and directed them to get some water. They ran for water, and each carried a pail of water into the purifying house and emptied it into the seal of the box which had blown out. They immediately turned about to go out of the house for more water, and met the plaintiff coming toward the house with a pail of water in one hand and a lighted torch in the other. One of the assistant firemen testified that he told the plaintiff to, “Look out for the torch!” The other testified that he heard the other fireman call out something about a torch. They had gone but a short distance from the building when the explosion occurred. One of these firemen telephoned for the fire department, notified the officers of the defendant of the accident, and then removed some of the débris, and from the ruins pulled the plaintiff, who was lying under the roof near the burning gas, and was being burned by it. The fire department responded, extinguished the fire, and in doing so sealed the purifying box and extinguished the gas.

The theory of the defendant is that the explosion was caused by the lighted torch which it is claimed the plaintiff carried into the purifying room filled with escaping gas. As tending to support this theory, there was evidence by the officers of the company that the plaintiff admitted while at the hospital that he had carried the lighted torch into the building. One of the officers testified that he had tested the lights that day and found them all right. An officer of the company testified that the next day he found the torch, the plaintiff's hat, and the pail in which he carried water near the door. One of the officers testified that he had turned off the current from the purifying house by the outside switch, leaving no current in the wires, about an hour before the explosion. The firemen testified, as stated above, that the plaintiff carried a lighted torch toward the building shortly before the explosion. One of them testified that he was present when the torch was picked up the next day, and that when work was resumed that night, and it was desired to light the gas in the retorts preparatory to recharging them, it was necessary to make a new torch because the one which had been used for this purpose was missing. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was not fully conscious when he was interviewed at the hospital, and the plaintiff's daughter testified to admissions of the two firemen that the plaintiff did not have a torch at the time of the explosion. There was evidence tending to show that there was no light in the purifying house when the firemen went into it. The plaintiff testified that he did not turn on the current by the outside switch, and he admitted that he did not know whether or not there was a light in the house when he went in, and claimed that, if there was such a light, it was obscured by the steam and vapors arising from the blow-out.

The plaintiff admits that no notice of the accident and of a claim for compensation was served upon the defendant within a year. There was evidence that the officers of the defendant told the daughter of the plaintiff that it was not necessary to serve any papers upon them, that any damages would have to be paid by the insurance company in which the defendant was insured against damages because of injuries to employés, that the officers of the defendant stated to the daughter of the plaintiff that they would do all they could to obtain damages for the plaintiff from the insurance company; and there was evidence of an offer of $100 from the insurance company to the plaintiff on condition that he would give an absolute release of his claim. It was admitted that the offer was made and the promise given that they would do what they could to obtain something from the insurance company for the plaintiff.

The jury found by special verdict that the escaping gas in the purifying house was ignited and exploded by an electric spark emitted from the electric light switch inside the house when the plaintiff operated the key at the socket to turn on the light; that the electric lighting equipment was not reasonably safe for the use of the plaintiff in performing his duties in defendant's employment; that the plaintiff's injuries were the natural and probable consequences of this want of reasonable safety; that the defendant ought to have foreseen that the plaintiff's injuries might probably result from the lack of such reasonable safety; that the defendant's officers represented to the plaintiff that it was not necessary for the...