Streck v. St. Louis County Gas Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 21669.,21669.
• Citation: 58 S.W.2d 487
• Parties: STRECK v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY GAS CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

58 S.W.2d 487

STRECK v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY GAS CO.

No. 21669.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 4, 1933.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Hon. Amandus Brackman, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Action by Joseph Streck against the St. Louis County Gas Company. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

A. E. L. Gardner, of Clayton, for appellant.

Foristel, Mudd, Blair & Habenicht, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, Commissioner.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of inhaling fuel gas furnished by defendant to plaintiff's apartment.

The trial, with a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $6,250, and defendant appeals.

Defendant assigns error here upon the refusal of its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence.

The accident whereby plaintiff received the injuries for which he sues occurred on February 18, 1929. Plaintiff resided at 32 North Gore avenue, in Webster Groves. He also conducted a bakery business at that number. His bakery was located on the ground floor, and the apartment where he resided was on the second floor. He used gas for fuel in his bakery and also for his gas range in the apartment. The range was located in the kitchen and was used for both cooking and heating purposes. There was no other means provided for heating the apartment. There were three rooms in the apartment, the kitchen, middle room, and front room. There was an opening, but no door, between the kitchen and the middle room. There was a door between the front room and the middle room. On the day in question the burner in the oven of the range was burning. The door of the oven was open. At about 1:30 p. m., plaintiff went from his bakery to the apartment. He sat by the range in the kitchen, and read his paper. About 2:30 he retired to the front room, leaving the door between the front room and the middle room open. He left the burner in the oven burning.

There were two gas meters in the basement of the building, attached to a horizontal pipe called a header pipe, the one registering the gas supplied to the bakery, the other registering the gas supplied to the apartment upstairs. About the time plaintiff retired, one Jones, an employee of the defendant, went into the basement of the building to change the meter which registered the gas supplied to the bakery. Before going into the basement, Jones told Mrs. Streck, plaintiff's wife, who was in the bakery on the first floor of the building, of his desire to change the meter. She informed him that her husband was in the apartment upstairs asleep, and that he had the gas burning, and suggested that she wake him up before the work was begun, and Jones said that was not necessary. Thereupon, Jones went into the basement, and changed the bakery meter, that is, removed the old meter and put on a new one.

Having finished the work of changing the meter about 3:30 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon, Jones went upstairs to the apartment for the purpose of testing the burners on the range. He knocked on the door of the apartment, and could not arouse the plaintiff. He returned to the bakery and told Mrs. Streck that he smelled gas, and that he could not arouse plaintiff. Thereupon the door was broken in, and Mrs. Streck and Jones went into the apartment. The petcock on the burner was still open, the flame was out, and the apartment was filled with gas. Plaintiff was found in bed unconscious. He was taken downstairs to the bakery, and a physician was called.

It would serve no useful purpose to describe the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, since no question is raised with respect to the amount of damages awarded by the jury.

The header pipe to which the meters were attached received the gas flowing through a supply pipe from the street main. The bakery meter was a large meter, described as a ten-light meter. It was located on the right next to the street. The apartment meter was a small meter, described as a five-light meter. It was located to the left of the bakery meter. The meters, the header pipe, and the supply pipe which carried the gas from the street main into the header pipe, belonged to the defendant. The service pipes, which carried the gas from the meters to the bakery and to the apartment, belonged to the owner of the building. There were three stopcocks in the pipes in the basement, one in the supply pipe leading from the street main to the header pipe, another in the pipe between the header pipe and the bakery meter, and another in the pipe between the header pipe and the apartment meter. Closing the stopcock, even momentarily, between the header pipe and the apartment meter would shut off the flow of the gas to the burner in the oven of the range in the apartment, and thus extinguish the flame. Opening the stopcock would restore the flow of the gas to the burner, and, the flame having been extinguished, the gas would flow out into the apartment and impregnate the atmosphere. The same thing would result from opening and closing the stopcock in the supply pipe. It was shown also that the removal of the bakery meter, even momentarily, without closing the stopcock between the header pipe and the meter, would, through permitting the gas to escape freely from the header pipe into the basement, interrupt the flow of the gas through the apartment meter and service pipe to the burner of the apartment range, and...