Louisville Gas Co. v. Guelat

• Decision Date: 15 November 1912
• Citation: 150 Ky. 583,150 S.W. 656
• Parties: LOUISVILLE GAS CO. v. GUELAT et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

150 S.W. 656

150 Ky. 583

LOUISVILLE GAS CO. v. GUELAT et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 15, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Second Division.

Action by Bertie Guelat and another against the Louisville Gas Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Humphrey & Humphrey and E. Leland Taylor, all of Louisville, for appellant.

Edwards Ogden & Peak, of Louisville, for appellees.

HOBSON C.J.

In August, 1910, appellees bought a house and lot on Stratton avenue in the city of Louisville from a Mrs. Bevars. She moved out and they moved in. She had been using a gas stove which she took away with her. The stove was disconnected from the pipe. The meter was taken out, and a cap was placed on the pipe. Appellees had never used gas, and did not subscribe for the gas service. They lived in the house until the following April, when they bought a secondhand gas stove, and employed a man named Johnson to put it in. Johnson asked for a candle, saying that it was dark in the corner where the pipe was. He lit the candle, and stooped down near the pipe. The gas exploded, and set fire to the house, burning it up with its contents. This suit was brought by appellees against the Gas Company to recover for the loss of the contents of the house on the ground that the fire was caused by its negligence. On several occasions during the winter the odor of gas in the house was detected, but they supposed it was from the sewer, and there was not enough of it to cause any great inconvenience. The pipe was sticking up through the kitchen floor eight or ten inches and Johnson says that, when he touched the plug, it popped out, and immediately the gas took fire, but that he did not unscrew the plug. The plug or cap was a piece of metal with screw threads on it. According to the proof for the Gas Company, the threads on the pipe after the fire were in good order, and was or should have been screwed on the pipe which had similar threads on it. According to this evidence, also, Johnson admitted on the day of the fire that he had unscrewed the plug, and that the fire resulted from his opening the pipe. There was also some proof tending to show that he was drunk at the time. On this proof the circuit court gave the jury the following instruction: "(1) It was the duty of the defendant, Louisville Gas Company, to have and maintain its gas pipe in such condition as to prevent the escape of gas into the plaintiff's house, and if you believe from the evidence in this case that the Gas Company negligently failed to so cover or protect the place where the gas was intended to come into the house as to prevent it from escaping in the house, and by reason of such negligence on the part of the Gas Company, if any, its agents or employés, the gas was permitted to get into the house, and thereby caused the ignition of the gas and the burning of the house, then the law of the case is for the plaintiffs, and you should so find." The jury found for the plaintiffs in the sum of $547, and the Gas Company appeals from the judgment entered on the verdict.

By the instruction of the court, the jury were, in substance, told that it was the duty of the Gas Company to have and maintain its gas pipe in such condition as to prevent the escape of gas into the plaintiffs, house, and that a failure on its part to do this was negligence. The instruction goes too far. In Triple-State Gas Co. v. Wellman, 114 Ky. 79, 70 S.W. 49, 24 Ky. Law. Rep. 851, 1 Ann.Cas. 64, we said "The authorities lay down the rule, as gas is a useful article, almost indispensable in modern life under many circumstances, the manufacture and sale of it is not an illegal act; and that the company in supplying this necessity to its customers is bound only to exercise such care and skill in its management as the dangerous character of the substance and the attending circumstances demand of a person of ordinary prudence." The company is not an...