Manning v. St. Paul Gaslight Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1915
• Docket Number: No. 19049[260].,19049[260].
• Citation: 151 N.W. 423,129 Minn. 55
• Parties: MANNING v. ST. PAUL GASLIGHT CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

129 Minn. 55

151 N.W. 423

MANNING

v.ST. PAUL GASLIGHT CO.

No. 19049[260].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 12, 1915.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Frederick M. Catlin, Judge.

Action by Mary B. Manning, as administratrix, against the St. Paul Gaslight Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and, from denial of alternative motion for judgment or new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Defendant manufactures and distributes illuminating gas. Such gas, when allowed to escape in any considerable quantity, becomes a highly dangerous substance, and the defendant must exercise a commensurate degree of care to prevent the gas from escaping up to the time it is measured and delivered, through its meter, to the consumer.

The rule of res ipsa loquitur may be applied to a situation which discloses that gas escaped in destructive quantities from a break in the service pipe installed by the gas company upon the consumer's premises, at his cost, and when the evidence further shows that there had been no work or change upon such premises which could have affected the pipe, and no interference therewith. Under this rule defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict.

The complaint, without the permitted amendment, held sufficiently broad to admit of proof showing improper installation of the service pipe.

No error is found in refusing to give requested instructions, nor is there prejudicial error in the charge as given.

The verdict finds support under the evidence and the law. Butler & Mitchell, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Charles W. Farnham and O'Brien, Young & Stone, all of St. Paul, for respondent.

HOLT, J.

While asleep in his home in St. Paul, Minn., on August 22, 1913, plaintiff's intestate, Samuel B. Manning, was asphyxiated by illuminating gas which had escaped through a break in the service pipe through which defendant supplied it to the building. Mr. Manning was alone in the house on the night he met death. Immediately upon his body being discovered, defendant made an investigation and ascertained that the gas found entrance to the house from a large break in the service pipe at a joint, or coupling, located in the ground about five feet away from where it passed through the foundation of the building. The pipe was laid about 27 inches below the surface. The ground was peaty. It, however, had been in no manner disturbed during the time Mr. Manning had been the owner, some four years. Defendant under its franchise installs the service pipe and connects it with a meter in the building to be supplied with gas; however, the owner of the building pays the cost of installation from the lot line to the meter. The complaint set forth:

‘That on or about August 22, 1913, the defendant wrongfully, unlawfully, and negligently had permitted its pipes to become damaged, defective, and leaky to such an extent that solely on account of such negligence a large quantity of the defendant's illuminating gas was permitted to escape and did escape’ into the dwelling house of Mr. Manning, causing his death.

Plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appeals from the order denying its motion, in the alternative, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial.

[1][2] Defendant is not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There is no doubt the fatal accident was caused by defendant's gas which escaped from the break in the service pipe. Illuminating gas is a highly dangerous and destructive product when allowed to escape or to get beyond control. Defendant is engaged in the manufacture and distribution thereof, and in so doing is required to...