Otto Township v. Wolf.

• Citation: 106 Pa. 608
• Parties: Otto Township <I>versus</I> Wolf.
• Decision Date: 09 June 1884
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 608

106 Pa. 608

Otto Township versus Wolf.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 15, 1884.

June 9, 1884.

May 15, 1884.

Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County: Of July Term, 1883, No. 174.

W. E. Burdick and T. A. Morrison (W. I. Lewis with them) for the plaintiff in error.

[TRUNKEY, J. Was there anything in the appearance of the pipe to indicate that it conveyed gas, rather than oil or water?]

No: it was a two-inch pipe, such as is generally used in the oil regions for either oil, water or gas. But there was nothing to put any one on inquiry, even as to the existence or location of the pipe, prior to the accidental breaking of the pipe only an hour before the accident. The plaintiff himself had never noticed the pipe, though he lived near by and frequently passed along the road. No actual notice to the township authorities was shown, and the danger being latent, there can be no question of constructive notice. The court below should therefore have affirmed our points, to the effect that there was no evidence of negligence by defendant, and should have directed a verdict for the defendant: Rapho, etc., Township v. Moore, 18 P. F. S., 404; Borough of Easton v. Neff, 6 Out., 474; Vanderslice v. Philadelphia, 7 Id., 102; McCully v. Clarke, 4 Wright, 399; Railroad Co. v. McElwee, 17 P. F. S., 311; Canal Co. v. Bently, 16 Id., 30; Johnson v. Railroad Co., 20 Id., 357; McLaughlin v. City of Corry, 27 Id., 109; Fritsch and Wife v. City of Allegheny, 10 Norris, 226; City of Allegheny v. Zimmerman, 14 Id., 287; Payne v. Reese, 4 Out., 301; Baker v. Fehr, et al., 1 Id., 70; Born v. Plank Road Co., 5 Out., 334; Borough of West Chester v. Apple, 11 Casey, 284.

E. L. Keenan and M. F. Elliott, (Wolf & George with them) for the defendant in error.—The mode of conducting oil and gas between neighboring works in the oil regions by pipes, such as this, is notorious, and we contend it was the duty of the township supervisors to have seen to it that no pipes conveying these dangerous products were laid across the public highway, or if laid, to be so protected as to avoid danger to the travelling public. Where, as here, there were oil wells and works on both sides of the road, belonging to the same operator, the natural inference was that there would be pipe connections, and if the supervisors had looked for them in the road they would have found this pipe, which was uncovered at the sides of the road, and only buried about a foot in the travelled portion. This was ample to charge them with constructive notice, during a period of several weeks prior to the accident: Born v. Plank Road Co., 5 Out., 334; Norristown v. Moyer, 17 P. F. S., 363; McLaughlin v. City of Corry, 27 P. F. S., 109; Blake v. St. Louis, 40 Mo. 569; Bassett v. St. Joseph, 53 Id., 290; Welsh v. St. Louis, 73 Id., 71; 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp., 3d ed. § 1024; Bassett v. St. Joseph, 14 American Rep., 446.

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court, June 9th, 1884.

This was an action on the case against the township of Otto to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, and caused, as was alleged, by the negligence of the defendant. From the admitted facts of the case it appears that on the evening of January 5, 1880, the plaintiff was walking along one of the public roads of said township, carrying a lighted lantern, and when in the vicinity of certain oil wells an explosion of gas occurred, by means of which the plaintiff was severely injured. At the place where the accident occurred a pipe, one or two inches in diameter, had been laid across the highway by one Patterson to convey gas from his oil well on one side of the road to a well he was drilling on the other side. This pipe had been in place about six weeks; in the centre, or travelled part of the road, it had been buried about one foot, but where it crossed the gutter, on either side of the road, it was exposed, and rested upon the bottom of the gutter. On the evening in question, about an hour before the accident occurred, a team had passed along at this point, and for some reason had deviated from the travelled portion, the wheels had come in contact with the exposed portion of the pipe in the gutter, causing a break thereof, and the escape of the gas. There was no evidence that the township authorities knew that the pipe had been laid across the road; the plaintiff lived about a quarter of a mile from the place of the accident; had passed along the road frequently and had not noticed the pipe.

Under these circumstances the defendant by his first point asked the court to instruct the jury: "That there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant;" and by the third point: "That there is no evidence of actual or constructive notice to the supervisors of ...