Paden v. Van Blarcom

Decision Date17 March 1903
Citation181 Mo. 117,100 Mo. App. 185,74 S.W. 124
PartiesPADEN v. VAN BLARCOM.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

1. Plaintiff, a domestic, was injured by the explosion of a gas range recently placed in defendant's house, and which he was examining before putting in use. It was shown that the range was properly constructed, and had been left in a safe condition by the workmen, with the gas turned off; that defendant ordered the gas turned on without previously examining the valves in the range; that, shortly after having lighted the burners on top of the stove, there was an explosion, by the gas having escaped into the broiler, the cocks controlling the flow of gas to this part of the range having been turned on; that defendant was theoretically familiar with ranges of this kind, and had more or less experience with them for many years. It was further shown that when the explosion occurred, plaintiff was present. Held, that it was a question for the jury whether defendant was guilty of negligence in not testing the valves before turning on the gas.

Goode, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Charles County; Elliott M. Hughes, Judge.

Action by Lizzie Paden against J. C. Van Blarcom to recover for negligent injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed, and, on rehearing, cause certified to the Supreme Court.

The material allegations in the petition are that for more than 10 years prior to the 26th day of February, 1896, plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a domestic; that prior to said date defendant had caused to be set up in his home, in Westmoreland Place, in the city of St. Louis, a combination cooking range, heated by gas or coal, designated or known as a "Majestic range"; that the range, when used and operated in a proper manner, is not dangerous, but, when used in an improper manner, is unsafe and exceedingly dangerous, which facts were then known to the defendant; that while plaintiff was in the kitchen in defendant's building, where said range had been set up, in the discharge of her duties under said employment, and while in close proximity to said range, defendant negligently used and operated said range so as to cause great injury to plaintiff, in this: he negligently allowed that part of the range known as the "broiler" to fill with gas, and negligently lighted the burners on top of the oven, in close proximity to the broiler, and caused the broiler to explode, causing pieces of the range to strike plaintiff with great force and violence, breaking her arm, bruising her about the head and body and in the eye, causing a total loss of sight in one eye, and permanently injuring and disfiguring her, by reason whereof she claims she was damaged in the sum of $15,000. The answer admits that plaintiff was in defendant's employ as a domestic at the time of the accident mentioned; admits that he had set up in the kitchen of his new home a combination cooking stove, heated by gas, and known as a "Majestic range"; admits that at the time of the accident he was engaged in using and operating the range; denies that he was doing so in a negligent manner; admits that the explosion occurred, but denies that it was occasioned by any fault or negligence on the part of defendant; admits that plaintiff was injured, but denies that she was injured by any fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, and denies the injury to the extent alleged in the petition; and denies each and every other allegation contained in the petition. For a further defense, defendant alleged that the Majestic range was purchased by him of the Majestic Range Manufacturing Company, who are manufacturers of the range, and reputed to be reliable and competent manufacturers of the same; that the range was set up by the company, and turned over to defendant as in a proper condition for safe use, and that defendant, so believing at the time that said range was in such condition for safe use, ignited the same, when, without any fault on his part, the explosion occurred. The reply was a general denial of the new matter alleged in the answer.

The evidence is that about ten days or two weeks prior to the accident the Majestic Range Company had placed in defendant's new building, then near completion, a combination cooking range, heated by coal or gas, and that connection had been made with the gas pipe in the building. The gas was let into the range through a cut-off in the pipe at the side of the range. When this cut-off was open, the gas would flow into the pipes supplying the valves to the broiler and the burners on the top. The broiler was heated by opening valves in the supply pipe for the broiler and lighting the gas, and the burners were lighted in a similar manner, by opening valves to the pipes supplying them with gas. The evidence is: That on the 26th day of February, 1896, the defendant, his wife, the plaintiff, and John Watts (colored), the butler, were in the building. That the plaintiff went on an errand from Mrs. Van Blarcom to Mr. Van Blarcom, and, in her search for him, found him and Watts in the kitchen, about the gas stove. She stated that she went in the kitchen to tell the defendant that his wife wanted him to come upstairs and open the safe; that he said he would be up in a minute, and then said, "Lizzie, I wish you would look at this stove and see if it burns as the one in the old house," and started to light another burner. She said: "No; I don't think it does. It don't catch as quickly as the one at the old house." And she was about to leave the room when the explosion took place. That when the explosion did take place she was struck above and below the right eye, where she has two scars, her right arm was broken, and is yet badly injured, and her right eye was entirely destroyed. That she had been in the service of defendant for about 10 years prior to the accident, and that her duties had been to "do sewing and take care of the boy." That since the accident she has not been able to earn any more than enough to clothe herself and to make a living. That prior to the accident she had been receiving from defendant $16 a month and her board. That since the accident she has not been able to sew one day after another. That her left eye is weak, and she is unable to do hard work on account of the injury to her right arm. John Watts, the butler, testified: That he and the defendant were looking around the stove. That defendant was in front, and he on the side, and that he could hear something blowing and the defendant asked him what it was, and he told him that he did not know. Defendant was looking and examining the stove, and he (witness) stooped down to examine the stove and to look into the oven, and just at that time the door blew off, and blew over his head. That the explosion occurred almost instantly after he heard the noise. That before the plaintiff had come into the kitchen, he, on the order of the defendant, had opened the cut-off and let the gas into the stove, and that the defendant had lighted the burners on top. That before the gas was turned into the stove the valves in the stove were not examined by him, nor by the defendant, to his knowledge. That the plaintiff came in the kitchen about the time the burners on top were lighted. The defendant, whose deposition had been taken prior to the trial, testified substantially as follows: That on the day of the accident, on the request of his wife, he went out to the house to show her the combination of one of the safes or vaults in the house. When he reached the house his wife was busy with some other matters, and he went through the different rooms, examining them, and finally reached the kitchen, where he found the butler, John Watts. That he noticed the range, which he had been informed was completed, and asked Watts if it was all right. Watts said he did not know; that he had not tried it. That he then suggested to Watts that they had better examine it and see. That he told him to turn on the gas, and that he (witness) turned on the cocks which controlled the flow of the gas at the top of the stove. That, when Watts turned on the gas below, he turned on the cocks which controlled the flow of gas to the top of the stove, and lighted the burners. That they were not entirely satisfactory—did not appear to burn in a satisfactory manner—and, as he was looking around the stove to see if he could locate the difficulty, plaintiff appeared at the door and said, "Mr. Van Blarcom, Mrs. Van Blarcom is ready for you now." To which he replied, "Very well, Lizzie; I will be there in a few minutes." That he went on to investigate the stove, to see if he could ascertain why the burners were not working better, and that the plaintiff stood almost directly behind him, watching the proceedings. That she remarked that the burners did not seem to burn as well as they did in their old kitchen at home. That he was still engaged in examining the stove, and had stooped down to look at the cock at the side or lower part of the range, and thinks at that time that Watts was on the other side for the same purpose. That they were trying, if possible, to see what was the matter. While they were in this position—he on one side, and Watts on the other, and the plaintiff almost immediately in front of the stove—the explosion occurred, and the door of the broiler was blown off, and a piece of it struck the plaintiff and knocked her down. That he immediately picked her up and took care of her, and summoned a doctor. Defendant testified that he was familiar, theoretically, with the working of ranges of the character of the one in the house; that he had examined a great many stoves of different kinds, and had more or less experience with them for many years, and had often instructed his cooks how to use them. He explained the cause of the explosion in this wise: That the cocks which supplied the gas, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Hegberg v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 1912
    ... ... reasonably prudent man in the light of all the attendant ... circumstances. [ Paden v. Van Blarcom, 181 Mo. 127, ... 74 S.W. 124, 79 S.W. 1195; Poeppers v. Railroad, 67 ... Mo. 715.] The defendant's liability to the plaintiff in ... ...
  • Hegberg v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 1912
    ...been foreseen by a reasonably prudent man in the light of all the attendant circumstances. Paden v. Van Blarcom, 181 Mo., loc. cit. 127, 74 S. W. 124, 79 S. W. 1195; Poeppers v. Railroad, 67 Mo. 715, 29 Am. Rep. 518. The defendant's liability to the plaintiff in this case, if any, arose fro......
  • Wallace v. F. Burkhart Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1928
    ... ... definition to the facts in this case. Stanley v. Union ... Depot Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 619; Quirk v. United El ... Co., 126 Mo. 293; Paden v. Van Blarcom, 100 ... Mo.App. 185. (3) Defendant's Instruction 6 is not ... confusing or misleading, but if appellant thought so he ... should ... ...
  • Sipple v. The Laclede Gaslight Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 14, 1907
    ... ... discover a Missouri case in point, in matter of fact, ... although the judgment of both this court and the Supreme ... Court in Paden v. Van Blarcom, 181 Mo. 117, 79 S.W ... 124, 79 S.W. 1195, 100 Mo.App. 185, is identical in principle ... with the views which we entertain on the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT