Peterson v. Tidewater Power Co.

• Decision Date: 29 March 1922
• Docket Number: 287.
• Parties: PETERSON ET AL. v. TIDEWATER POWER CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

111 S.E. 8

183 N.C. 243

PETERSON ET AL. v. TIDEWATER POWER CO.

No. 287.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 29, 1922

Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; Connor, Judge.

Action by Emily T. Peterson and others against the Tidewater Power Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. No error.

In an action against a gas company for damages for the burning of a cottage to which defendant supplied gas, the fire starting shortly after the connections had been made, evidence as to how the work of connecting the pipes and testing them was done held competent in support of plaintiff's contention that the fire originated through the negligence of defendant's employees.

In an action for the destruction by fire of a summer cottage through the alleged negligence of the employees of a gas company supplying the cottage with gas, the rules of insurance companies relative to placing insurance on beach property held irrelevant and incompetent.

This was a civil action, brought by the plaintiff to recover damages of the defendant for the alleged negligent burning by the defendant of the feme plaintiff's cottage and furniture at Wrightsville Beach. The action was tried before his honor, Judge Connor, and a jury, at the October term 1921, of the superior court of New Hanover county, which trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

At the trial the defendant admitted the plaintiff's ownership in fee simple of the lands and premises described in the complaint, but required the plaintiffs to put in the deed which showed the purchase price of the property alleged to have been destroyed through the negligence of the defendant.

The defendant admitted in the pleadings: That it was a corporation engaged in the business of supplying the town of Wrightsville Beach and persons along its system with electricity for lights, power, and gas for lighting, heating cooking, and other purposes, charging its usual rates for gas and electricity. That upon the tract of land described in the complaint was a summer residence or cottage, which was not occupied during the winter months, but occupied only during the summer months, and that the plaintiff had household and kitchen furniture for living purposes in said cottage, and was preparing to move down and occupy said cottage for the summer season, expecting to begin such occupancy on the 3d day of June, 1920.

That it was the custom of the company to cut off its supply of electricity and gas to cottages in the early fall by disconnecting, in some manner, the supply of gas and electricity from such cottages at the main pipe and wires feeding said cottages, and that before gas and electricity were turned into the cottage they required the owner, or person expecting to occupy such cottage, to make application to the defendant for connecting up and turning on the gas and electricity, and required the keys to the cottage to be surrendered to the defendant so that they might enter the same and inspect the meters and connect with the supply of electricity and gas, which had been disconnected the previous fall.

That on the 31st day of May, 1920, application was made for gas service for the plaintiffs' cottage, and the keys to the same were turned over to the defendant, to enable it, or its agents, or servants, to enter such cottage and connect up the gas fixtures so that the plaintiffs could use and consume gas according to their needs for cooking and heating purposes, and that the plaintiffs paid the defendant its charges for such service. That it was the custom of the defendant, immediately after making the necessary connections, to turn on the flow of gas and light the same, in order to ascertain whether or not its patrons would be able to receive the expected service. That in disconnecting the gas in the fall the defendant's custom was to disconnect the metal or iron pipe which conducted the gas through the meter at some point inside the building, near where the pipe entered the meter, and this was the method used in the plaintiffs' cottage.

That on the 1st day of June, 1920, between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock a. m., before the plaintiffs had moved into said cottage, the defendant's servants, or employees, entered said cottage to connect up, test out, and put in proper condition the gas fixtures for use by the plaintiff, and that in a very short time after the defendant's employees had left the cottage fire was discovered in the kitchen or rear part of the cottage, at and around where the defendant's employees had been working and connecting the gas, and that gas from the defendant's pipe was pouring out into said cottage a burning flame, and the plaintiffs' cottage and furnishings were completely destroyed and consumed by the said fire.

The foregoing facts are substantially admitted in the pleadings, the only denials of the defendant being that as to negligence and the value of the property destroyed by the fire; the defendant stating, in the ninth paragraph of its answer, that it was probably more than an hour after defendant's employees left the house before the fire was discovered.

The evidence tended to show, in addition: That when Mr. Peterson moved out of the cottage the previous fall all matches and combustible materials had been removed from the cottage. That Mr. Peterson, about a week previous to the fire, and before he surrendered the keys to the defendant company, for the purpose of connecting up the gas and electricity, visited the cottage and left the same securely locked and fastened, and that there was no fire in the cottage. That the defendant's employees, during the morning about 12 o'clock, entered the cottage with the keys to install the meter and connect the gas in the kitchen, and this they did and, after doing so, lighted the gas to test it out. There is no evidence that any other person from that time until the fire was discovered was in, at, or around the plaintiffs' cottage. That Mrs. Peterson left Lumina on...