Lorenz v. Caste Development Co.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1951 |
| Parties | LORENZ et al. v. CASTE DEVELOPMENT CO. et al. Appeal of MANUFACTURERS LIGHT & HEAT CO. Appeal of CASTE DEVELOPMENT CO. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 26, 1951.
Frank Lorenz and others brought suit against the Caste Development Company, a corporation, and another for property damage and personal injuries. Walter B. Gehr was made a defendant of record. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at No 1724 April Term, 1948 Thomas M. Marshall, J., granted a new trial as to all defendants and the original defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, Nos. 16, 34, March Term, 1951 Stern, J., held that under the evidence the trial court in granting the new trial did not abuse its discretion.
Order affirmed.
Samuel M. Jackson, Harbaugh Miller, Pittsburgh, for Caste Development co.
Evans Ivory & Evans, Pittsburgh, Samuel W. Pringle and Dalzell, McFall, Pringle & Bredin, Pittsburgh, for Walter B. Gehr.
Clyde A. Armstrong, J. Roland Johnston and Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, all of Pittsburgh, for Manufacturers Light & Heat Co.
John E. Evans, Jr. and Evans, Ivory & Evans, all of Pittsburgh, for Frank Lorenz et al.
Before DREW, C. J., and STERN, JONES, BELL, LADNER and CHIDSEY, JJ.
On November 30, 1947 a violent explosion of gas occurred in a two story house in Overbrook Acres, Whitehall Borough Allegheny County. Some of the plaintiffs suffered property damage, others personal injuries, and they brought suit against Manufacturers Light & Heat Company, a corporation which supplied the gas through its mains, and Caste Development Company, a corporation which had been the general contractor in the erection of the house. Walter B. Gehr, who had done the plumbing work, was brought on the record as an additional defendant. The complaint, as amended, alleged that the explosion occurred as the result of an accumulation of gas which escaped from the service line on the property and infiltrated into the house; that the Development Company had installed the service line; that the installation was made in a negligent manner; that the Light & Heat Company had inspected and approved the improper installation; that it had notice of a leak but failed to repair it or to turn off the gas at the curb; that it had notice of an odor of gas escaping from the service line but failed to make an adequate examination to determine the cause. During the course of the trial plaintiffs further amended their complaint by adding the allegation that the Light & Heat Company had attached the service line to its main line in a negligent manner in that it had forced the service line downward under great pressure, thereby causing the pipe to become weakened and break, with the consequent escape of gas and the resulting explosion.
A verdict was rendered by the jury in favor of the Development Company and in favor of Gehr, but for the plaintiffs against the Light & Heat Company in amounts aggregating $71,961.25. The Light & Heat Company filed motions for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v. The court refused the latter but granted the former as to all three of the defendants. The Light & Heat Company now appeals from the refusal to grant its motion for judgment n. o. v.; the Development Company appeals from the grant, as to it, of a new trial.
Considering first the appeal by the Light & Heat Company, we are of the opinion, after a careful examination of the more than 800 pages of testimony, that it was not entitled to binding instructions and therefore not entitled to the entry of a judgment n. o. v. There is competent evidence to the effect that it was the Light & Heat Company that made the connection between its four inch gas main and the one-and-a-quarter inch service line which extended into plaintiffs' premises. True, no witness testified that he actually saw this attachment being made, but admittedly it was only the Light & Heat Company or the plumber, Gehr, who could have connected the two lines, and, since Gehr and his employes strenuously denied that they had done it, the necessary conclusion from their testimony is that it was the Light & Heat Company which performed that part of the work. Gehr's men testified that, having laid the service pipe on the property, they capped it at the curb end, tested it in the presence of the Light & Heat Company's representative whose business it was to inspect and approve it, and piled the dirt roughly back over the line; when these operations had been performed their part of the work, they said, was completed, leaving it to the Light & Heat Company to screw the service pipe into the curb box or connect the two lines by a coupler; it was also testified that this was the uniform practice as between a building contractor and the gas company. Plaintiffs contended that, in any event, it was the duty of the Light & Heat Company to check the connection before permitting gas to flow into the service line. Of course there was opposing testimony to the effect that it was Gehr's employes who made the connection, but this merely made the question one for determination by the jury. Plaintiffs claimed that the attachment was improperly and negligently made in that, the main line being lower than the service pipe, the latter was pulled down in order to make the connection; the testimony offered in support of this contention was that when, after the explosion, the service pipe was cut at a point some 6 or 8 inches from its connection with the main line, it sprang violently upward a distance of from 4 to 6 inches, showing that it had been under tension at the point where it had been screwed or coupled into the main line. A plumbing contractor, and a chemist who, in the course of his profession, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial