Pine Bluff Natural Gas Co. v. Guest

• Decision Date: 14 June 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 43.)
• Citation: 177 S.W. 917
• Parties: PINE BLUFF NATURAL GAS CO. v. GUEST et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 917

177 S.W. 917

PINE BLUFF NATURAL GAS CO. v. GUEST et al.

(No. 43.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 14, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Rowell, Special Judge.

Consolidated actions by James F. Guest, by Thomas L. Guest, his next friend, and by Walter Jones, against Pine Bluff Natural Gas Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Moore, Smith & Moore, of Little Rock, Danaher & Danaher, of Pine Bluff, and H. M. Trieber, of Little Rock, for appellants. Coleman & Gantt, of Pine Bluff, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

These are two consolidated cases instituted by appellees J. F. Guest and Walter Jones against the Pine Bluff Natural Gas Company to recover damages on account of personal injuries resulting from an explosion of gas in the basement of a hotel which was being constructed in the city of Pine Bluff. Both of the plaintiffs were metal workers and were engaged in constructing a smokestack for a boiler which was being installed for use in the hotel. Gas-fitters and plumbers were also at work in the basement, and one of them, Heck by name, was working with a lighted candle. The gas was turned into the pipes in the basement by Mr. Blake, the superintendent of appellant company, and it escaped from the pipe by reason of the removal of the core from a valve. The escaping gas accumulated in the basement and became ignited by the candle handled by Heck. Appellees were severely burned by reason of the explosion, and the jury awarded damages to each in a substantial sum. There is evidence to the effect that the explosion was caused by some workmen striking a match, but it is unnecessary to determine now whether it was caused in that way or by the candle used by the plumber. That question is, in other words, not material to the determination of the case here. The building was at that time incomplete, but the lessees had an engineer named Taylor superintending or overlooking the construction of the engine and other arrangements in the basement. The gas was turned into the pipes by Blake at the request of Taylor; but there is a conflict in the testimony as to the particular purpose in turning the gas in, whether it was for some purpose of the gas company, or merely turned in by the gas company at the request of the consumer for purposes of the latter.

Learned counsel for appellant concede that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a recovery by plaintiffs upon two theories which are set forth as follows in appellant's brief:

"Plaintiffs were entitled to prevail if either they could obtain a finding from the jury that defendant turned the gas into the building, not for the purposes of the applicant for the gas, but for some purpose of its own, and so acting failed to make the prior inspection for leaks that reasonable prudence required; or if plaintiffs could obtain a finding from the jury on the conflicting evidence that the defendant, after turning on the gas for the purposes of the applicant, was put on notice of an escape of the gas in time to avoid the explosion by cutting off the gas, and with such notice and...