Heller v. Equitable Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | 225 |
| Parties | Heller v. Equitable Gas Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued September 29, 1938.
Appeal, No. 225, March T., 1938, from judgment of C.P Allegheny Co., April T., 1936, No. 783, in case of Charles I Heller v. Equitable Gas Company. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before McCANN, P.J., specially presiding.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff in sum of $5,000. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of judgment n.o.v.
Judgment affirmed.
T. W. Pomeroy, Jr., with him Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.
John E. Evans, Jr., with him Margiotti, Pugliese, Evans & Buckley, and Carl D. Smith, for appellee.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
The plaintiff, who is the owner of a house on Evergreen Road, Ross Township, Allegheny County, instituted this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of a gas explosion which occurred at his home on February 14, 1934. The defendant corporation at the time of the accident was engaged in the business of furnishing gas to its customers in the City of Pittsburgh and elsewhere in Allegheny County. The plaintiff, one of such customers, alleges that the explosion was caused by the negligence of the defendant.
The testimony discloses that several months prior to the explosion, plaintiff detected a gas leak upon his premises. At that time employees of the defendant were working upon a neighboring property, and the foreman, a Mr. Kind, was requested by plaintiff to ascertain whether there was leaking gas in his service line. Upon prior occasions when he had reported gas leaks, the defendant had sent this representative to do the repair work. After investigation, the foreman found there was a leak, and said to plaintiff that if he would uncover the service line "we'll come over and put another piece of pipe in." The plaintiff dug up about fourteen feet of the line and discovered a hole in the pipe from which gas was escaping.
Later upon the same day the defendant's foreman and three employees replaced with new pipe the defective sections of the line. After the work was completed plaintiff was told "it's all right now." No charge was made for doing this work. The section of pipe removed was twelve feet in length, so that about two feet of the service line, which was not replaced, was visible to the employees of defendant while making the repairs.
The home of plaintiff is built upon a terrace, and for a distance of twenty-nine feet from the house, the service line was laid in filled ground composed of rubbish, decayed wood and ashes, with a one foot covering of top soil.
During a cold spell in February, 1934, plaintiff was applying a torch to water pipes in the cellar of his home when an explosion occurred. It is conceded that it was caused by the escape of gas from that portion of the service line which had not been removed in 1933, when the repairs were made. The gas permeated through the ground to the cellar of plaintiff's house and accumulated in the hollow tile wall in the cellar where the water pipes were located. While the exact point in the old service line where the leak occurred was not established at trial, sections of such pipe were removed subsequently to the explosion and found to be corroded and to contain several holes. As a result of the accident plaintiff suffered a compound fracture of the left leg, as well as other severe injuries.
It is contended that defendant was negligent because it was under a duty to discontinue furnishing gas to plaintiff until an investigation disclosed the extent of defective pipe in the entire line; that when a perforated section of pipe was encountered in filled ground of the character here present, it was charged with knowledge that such soil might cause deterioration of the remaining pipe, and eventual leakage of gas.
On behalf of defendant, its employees who made the repairs testified that the pipe beyond the point of replacement was in sound condition; that they made all the usual tests for gas at or near the point of union after making the repairs, and there was no reason to believe that the pipe was defective; that the work was done in the proper manner and in accordance with the best practice. They also stated that while they did not do the excavation work, the material removed appeared to be a clay fill.
The question whether defendant exercised due care was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant's motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial were overruled by the court below, and from the judgment accordingly entered it has taken this appeal.
Defendant urges that judgment non obstante veredicto should have been entered in its favor because there was no evidence of negligence to sustain the verdict of the jury. In support of the motion for new trial, it assigns as error the action of the court below in permitting plaintiff (1) to introduce evidence of leaks occurring prior to the repairs in 1933, and (2) to exhibit to the jury sections of pipe removed by defendant's workmen in 1933 and other sections taken out by plaintiff after the explosion.
Upon the question whether there is sufficient evidence of negligence, it seems to us that when defendant's employees undertook to ascertain the cause of leaking gas upon plaintiff's premises, and discovered a corroded and perforated service line and then proceeded to repair it, they were under a duty to make an adequate inspection to determine whether the remaining sections of the line were in the same condition as those which they had removed and replaced with new pipe. It is not sufficient to assert that defendant was bound merely to install a twelve foot piece of pipe in the service line, and when this work was performed in a proper manner the burden imposed upon it was satisfied. Defendant was obligated to go further, in view of the knowledge acquired of the condition of the pipe and the character of the ground in which it was laid, and to ascertain whether the corrosion extended to the remaining portion of the line, before turning gas into it and advising plaintiff "it was all right." The alternative duty of defendant was to shut off the gas at the main and to discontinue the supply thereof to plaintiff, until he had made the necessary repairs and replacements to his service line.
Plaintiff relied entirely upon the experience of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. City Light & Traction Co.
...257 N.W. 406; Atkinson v. Wichita Gas Co. (Kan.), 18 P.2d 127; Nonnamaker v. Kay County Gas Co. (Okla.), 253 P. 296; Heller v. Equitable Gas Co. (Pa.), 3 A.2d 343. (6) (a) Plaintiff's allegations that "gas and fumes" escaped through the negligence of defendant were sufficiently broad to adm......
-
Village of Lapwai v. Alligier
... ... 525 ... Any ... article made important by evidence or by the nature of the ... investigation may be produced for inspection. Heller v ... Equitable Gas Co., 333 Pa. 433, 3 A.2d 343, 345; Byers ... v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 222 Pa. 547, 72 A. 245, 247 ... Samples ... ...
-
Hanson v. City Light & Traction Co.
...compilations that are closely analogous upon the facts, and in which the liability of the company was upheld. Heller v. Equitable Gas Co., 333 Pa. 433, 438, 3 A.2d 343; Julian v. Sinclair Oil & Gas Co., 168 Okl. 192, 32 P.2d 31; Scarborough v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 58 Ariz. 51,......
-
Karle v. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp.
...have imposed a clear and specific duty on gas companies to inspect the surrounding portion of the pipeline. In Heller v. Equitable Gas Co., 333 Pa. 433, 3 A.2d 343 (1939), the defendant gas company was called to the plaintiff's home to repair an apparent gas leak several months before the h......