Soles v. Peoples Natural Gas Co.

• Decision Date: 09 October 1911
• Docket Number: 45-1911
• Citation: 48 Pa.Super. 84
• Parties: Soles v. The Peoples Natural Gas Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

48 Pa.Super. 84

Soles v. The Peoples Natural Gas Company, Appellant

No. 45-1911

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

October 9, 1911

Argued April 12, 1911

Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 4, Allegheny Co First Term, 1908, No. 957, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Margaret Soles v. The People's Natural Gas Company.

Trespass to recover damages for injuries to a house resulting from an explosion of gas. Before Carnahan, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 533. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned among others was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

Reversed.

Stephen Stone, with him W. A. Stone and Christy Payne, for appellant. -- Nearly all of the cases in Pennsylvania, which have to do with gas explosions, and in fact, in all cases in which the gas company has been held responsible, refer to those cases where the gas was allowed to escape through some of the pipes, either the main or service pipes, the property of the gas company. The theory underlying these cases is, of course very patent, for the gas companies alone have control of such class of pipes. However, when an explosion occurs through failure to have the pipes in a house in a proper condition to receive the gas, the dicta is in the cases referred to, that the gas company can in no sense be held responsible: Koelsch v. Philadelphia Co., 152 Pa. 355; McKenna v. Bridgewater Gas Co., 193 Pa. 633; Lodge v. United Gas Imp. Co., 209 Pa. 553; Hartman v. Citizens' Nat. Gas Co., 210 Pa. 19; Oil City Fuel Supply Co. v. Boundy, 122 Pa. 449; Chouteau v. St. Louis Gas Light Co., 47 Mo.App. 326; Schmeer v. Gas Light Co., 65 Hun, 378 (20 N.Y.S. 168); Schmeer v. Gas Light Co., 147 N.Y. 529 (42 N.E. 202).

It was the duty of the owner and the tenant to see to it that the pipes were in good order, and this accident having been caused through the failure of the owner and the tenant to have their pipes in proper condition to receive the gas, the appellant cannot be held liable in damages for the result of the explosion: Smith v. Pawtucket Gas Co., 24 R.I. 292 (52 A. 1078, 96 Am. St. Rep. 713); Bartlett v. Boston Gas Light Co., 117 Mass. 533; Krzywoszynski v. Consolidated Gas Co., 38 N.Y.S. 929; Flint v. Gloucester Gas Light Co., 85 Mass. 343; King v. Consolidated Gas Co., 85 N.Y.S. 728.

Joseph F. Mayhugh, for appellee. -- The case was for the jury: Shirey v. Consumers Gas Co., 215 Pa. 399; Apfelback v. Consolidated Gas Co., 204 Pa. 570; Devlin v. Beacon Light Co., 198 Pa. 583; Kane v. Phila., 196 Pa. 502; Spear v. R. R. Co., 119 Pa. 61; Baker v. W. & C. Nat. Gas Co., 157 Pa. 593; McCoy v. Ohio Valley Gas Co., 213 Pa. 367; Olive Stove Works v. Ft. Pitt Gas Co., 210 Pa. 141; Heh v. Consolidated Gas Co., 201 Pa. 443.

Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head, Beaver and Porter, JJ.

OPINION

HEAD, J.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for the partial destruction of her building resulting from an explosion of natural gas. The building was arranged to accommodate two tenants. The plaintiff herself had formerly occupied one portion of it, but at the time of the explosion was residing in a separate dwelling erected on the same lot. The entire building first mentioned had been piped by the owner so that its occupants could use natural gas for fuel or light or both, and gas had been thus used by the occupants. Each side of the building was provided with a separate service pipe and gas meter so that the respective tenants could control the disposition and use of the gas.

For some time prior to the explosion one side of the premises had been unoccupied, and at the time it became vacant the meter had been removed from the basement of that portion of the building and the gas shut off at the street main. A few days prior to October 25, 1907, the plaintiff had secured a new tenant, and on that day this tenant notified the defendant company of her occupancy and that she desired to have the gas turned into the premises. At about six o'clock in the evening of the day mentioned two of the defendant's employees came to the house, bringing with them a new meter of standard design. Having duly set the meter in the place prepared for it and connected it with the service pipe and the house system, they turned on the gas at the street line as they had been requested to do. The gas in the street main was under a pressure of not more than six ounces. Had the system of pipes inside the house been free from leaks, it is manifest that only a sufficient amount of gas would pass through the meter to fill the house pipes with the same pressure of gas already mentioned. By watching the dial attached to the meter for that purpose, it almost immediately became manifest to the defendant's employees that there was a leak somewhere in the house pipes. They at once shut off the gas at the meter and gave notice of the fact that there was a leak in the house pipes. According to the estimates given by the witnesses for the plaintiff, the time that elapsed between the opening of the street main and the shutting off of the gas did not exceed about two minutes.

Although the defendant was in nowise responsible for the condition of the house pipes and owed the plaintiff no duty either to find the leak or repair it, one of its employees volunteered to try and locate it. Having been provided with a lantern, at his request, he went to the second floor and at once discovered that a cap which should have protected an opening in the pipe had been removed. He then went away, leaving instructions that the gas should not be turned on until the house leak had been closed. Neither of the defendant's agents went to the third floor or had any knowledge of conditions there. Neither the plaintiff's tenant nor anyone about the premises opened any windows or took any precaution to free the premises from the gas that had necessarily escaped during the brief period of time that elapsed between the opening of the street main and the closing of the gas at the meter in the manner described.

Thus far there can hardly be said to be any conflict in the testimony. Just how much gas actually did pass through the meter in the time indicated, the testimony leaves in serious doubt. The size of the pipe and the pressure of the gas are not matters in controversy. On the day following the accident it appears that the meter dial registered 140 feet. The great weight of the testimony tends to show that, given the size of the pipe, the pressure of the gas, and taking the estimate of time furnished by the plaintiff's witnesses, no such amount of gas could have passed through the meter in that brief period. But if the verdict involves a finding by the jury that the meter was not touched by anyone after the defendant's servants left it, and that, as a consequence, the amount of gas found to be registered must have passed through before they shut it off, we cannot say as matter of law, that such finding is without supporting evidence and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of it.

Some little time after the happening of the occurrences thus noted -- the exact time being left in doubt by the testimony -- one of the occupants of the other side of the house went to his room on the third floor and struck a match. An explosion, and probably two explosions followed, resulting in the injury to the building for which the plaintiff now seeks to recover. To establish her right, her testimony must tend to show some negligent breach of duty on the part of the defendant or its servants which was the proximate cause of the injury. It is not contended by evidence or argument that there was any defective condition in the system owned or controlled by the defendant. It is clear enough that in opening...