Hashman v. The Wyandotte Gas Company

• Decision Date: 05 November 1910
• Docket Number: 16,634
• Citation: 83 Kan. 328,111 P. 468
• Parties: CHARLES HASHMAN, Appellee, v. THE WYANDOTTE GAS COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

111 P. 468

83 Kan. 328

CHARLES HASHMAN, Appellee, v. THE WYANDOTTE GAS COMPANY, Appellant

No. 16,634

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 5, 1910

Decided July, 1910.

Appeal from Wyandotte court of common pleas.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. EVIDENCE--Circumstantial--Finding that Gas which Exploded Came from Defendant's Underground Pipes. Although there was no direct evidence that the natural gas which exploded and injured appellee came from the gas pipes of appellant, the fact that on two different occasions just before the explosion gas came up through the ground, caught fire and burned above appellant's gas pipes close to the place of the explosion, together with the fact that the pipes had been in the ground considerable time, and had rusted and scaled to quite an extent, justified the inference drawn by the jury that the gas which exploded and caused the injury came from the pipes of the appellant.

2. NOTICE--Defective Underground Gas Pipes--Circumstantial Evidence. The burning of the escaping gas on the streets in which the pipes were laid and in a densely populated section of the city justified the inference that the appellant knew or should have known of the defective condition of its gas pipes.

3. SPECIAL QUESTIONS--Construction and Contents. In asking for the submission to the jury of special interrogatories it is the duty of counsel to frame each question so as to present only a single, direct and material fact, one which is within the issues of the case.

4. SPECIAL FINDINGS--Consistency with General Verdict. The answers to special questions examined and found not to be in conflict with the general verdict.

J. W Dana, for the appellant; George R. Allen, of counsel.

James F. Getty, David F. Carson, and Charles Thompson, for the appellee.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

In an action brought by Charles Hashman against the Wyandotte Gas Company he alleged that he was seriously injured by an explosion of gas that had accumulated in a catch basin from leaky and defective pipes which the gas company had laid and negligently maintained in the streets of Kansas City. The jury returned a verdict awarding damages to Hashman in the sum of $ 1500, and returned with it answers to a number of special interrogatories. The company appeals, and one of its principal contentions is that the findings and verdict are not supported by the evidence.

It is true, as appellant contends, that there is no direct evidence of the escape of the gas which exploded and injured the appellee, but there is testimony which appears to warrant the inference that it came from the defective pipes maintained by appellant and that appellant is responsible for the injury inflicted. Direct proof of negligence is not essential to a recovery, as negligence may be established by circumstantial evidence alone. If the circumstances proved fairly authorize the inference of negligence, and the jury have drawn that inference, it is enough. The fact that the result is not free from doubt or that different persons might draw different conclusions from the same testimony is not a good reason for disturbing the verdict. As was said in Railway Co. v. Wood, 66 Kan. 613:

"Circumstantial evidence in a civil case, in order to be sufficient to sustain a verdict, need not rise to that degree of certainty which will exclude every reasonable conclusion other than the one arrived at by the jury." (Syllabus.)

Here there was direct proof that quite a number of pipes for carrying gas were laid and maintained in the streets, near the point of the explosion. These pipes were of different sizes, some of them being twelve inches in diameter, some eight inches, some six inches, and some four inches. Some of them had been in the ground about nine years and were considerably rusted and scaled. To prove that gas escaped from them, testimony was offered to the effect that about two or three weeks before the accident gas which came up through the ground was found burning on the street near the corner where the explosion occurred. About four days before the accident gas was found escaping from the pavement, about ten feet from the place of the accident, and it was burning. When appellee and his companion sat down on the edge of the catch basin he struck a match for the purpose of lighting his pipe, when an explosion occurred...