Logansport & Wabash Val. Gas Co. v. Coate
| Decision Date | 17 June 1902 |
| Citation | 64 N.E. 638,29 Ind.App. 299 |
| Parties | LOGANSPORT & WABASH VAL. GAS CO. v. COATE. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Wabash county; H. B. Shiveley, Judge.
Action by Josephine Coate against the Logansport & Wabash Valley Gas Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
C. E. Cowgill, T. L. Stitt, and A. B. Everhard, for appellant. James D. Conner, Jr., for appellee.
The appellant, as a part of its appliances for supplying the city of Wabash with natural gas, maintained a pipe line in and along Middle street, running north and south. The appellee was the owner in fee simple of a house and lot abutting on the east side of the street, in which one Emiline Burns had a life estate. This house was supplied with natural gas by the appellant, through a service pipe which extended from the main pipe line in the street to and into a cellar under the eastern portion or wing of the house, which extended further northward than the westward portion; there being under these portions cellars, which were connected by a door. The service pipe which so entered through the foundation wall of the east cellar ran north of, and parallel with, the west cellar, and a branch pipe ran therefrom into the west cellar. Late in the afternoon of the 22d of February, 1899, a girl 14 years of age, named Bessie Lane, went down into the west cellar, and there struck a match, whereupon an explosion of gas occurred, which wrecked the house, and so maimed and bruised Bessie Lane and Emiline Burns, inmates of the house, that they died from the injuries. This was an action in which the appellee sought and recovered damages for the destruction of the house.
The discussion of counsel pertains chiefly to the evidence; the controversy relating, for the most part, to the manner in which the gas which exploded entered the cellars. There was evidence that at the time of the making of a test, soon after the explosion, there was a leak in a joint in the pipe within the west cellar; and as the service pipe did not belong to the appellant, except that portion thereof between the main pipe line in the street and the curb box, about nine feet from the main, it is claimed that appellant was not chargeable with the presence of gas in the cellars. The evidence showed that between the curb box and the house there was no leak in the service pipe, but that there was a leak between the main pipe line and the curb box. From this leak to the place where the service pipe went into the east cellar was about 85 feet, and a part of the claim of appellant is that the evidence did not warrant a conclusion that the gas passed from this leak to the house. There was evidence that after the explosion, when the gas had been cut off at the curb box, and the gas had all escaped from the service pipe east of the curb box, as was indicated by failure to cause ignition by the application of a flame to the open east end of the pipe, there was sufficient gas at the opening in the wall through which the service pipe entered the east cellar to produce a flame which burned until extinguished by throwing earth upon it. The jury well might find that this gas did not come from the service pipe at any point east of the curb box. It was also within the province of the jury to find, upon the evidence, which we cannot take space to set out more fully, that before the explosion there was no leak in the west cellar, or any place east of the curb box. There has been discussion here as to the effect of the frozen condition of the surface of the earth, and as to the importance of the indications furnished by the presence or the absence of discoloration of the earth by the escaping gas. These matters, and, indeed, the whole discussion of counsel upon the question as to the sufficiencyof the evidence, belong to the province of the jury and the trial court. It would be practically impossible for this court to occupy itself with such matters, with reasonable expectation of reaching true and just results. There being evidence which sustains the verdict on all material points, we cannot disturb the result on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.
Objections are urged to the action of the court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Otis
...Exhibit 16 came from a part of the line laid by Dehner under the contract with NIPSCO here in question. Logansport & Wabash Valley Gas Co v. Coate, 29 Ind.App. 299, 64 N.E. 638 (1902), was an action resulting from a gas explosion. The plaintiff introduced evidence of other leaks before the ......
-
Gwaltney Drilling, Inc. v. McKee
...gave very extensive detailed evidence regarding this entire construction job in all of Odon. In Logansport and Wabash Valley Natural Gas Co. v. Coate, 29 Ind.App. 299, 64 N.E. 638 (1902), the plaintiff introduced evidence of other leaks before explosion from other places in the pipe system.......
-
Richmond Gas Corp. v. Reeves, 671A114
... ... City of Indianapolis, etc. v. Walker, et al., supra; Logansport, ... Page 811 ... etc., Gas Co. v. Coate (1902), 29 Ind.App. 299, 64 ... ...
-
City of Indianapolis v. Falvey
...or direction, the defendant can not avail himself of the negligence of such third person as a defense.' Logansport, etc., Gas Co. v. Coate (1902), 29 Ind.App. 299, 305, 64 N.E. 638, 640. Accord: City v. Walker, 'In order to be actionale, an act of negligence need not be the only proximate c......