The Richmond Gas Co. v. Baker
| Decision Date | 26 January 1897 |
| Docket Number | 17,156 |
| Parties | The Richmond Gas Company v. Baker |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Wayne Circuit Court.
Reversed.
T. J Study, for appellant.
Jackson & Starr, for appellee.
This was an action for damages, brought by appellee for injuries alleged to have been received by her by reason of an explosion of artificial gas, caused by the negligence of appellant. The questions arising on the appeal relate chiefly to the allegations and proof made as to negligence on the part of the company, and contributory negligence on the part of the appellee. As bearing upon these questions, the briefs of counsel are almost exclusively taken up with a discussion of the sufficiency of the complaint and the correctness of the court's action in giving and refusing instructions.
The complaint is in three paragraphs. The first paragraph counts on negligence of the company in the laying of its mains in the street and the making of connections of the same with the house pipe, whereby, as alleged, gas escaped from the mains into the house. The second paragraph counts on negligence in repairing leaks in the house pipe after defects therein had been discovered and made known to the company and the repair had been undertaken, but not properly made by its agents thus causing the gas to escape through the house. The third paragraph counts on a defective joint of pipe which the company used to connect its street mains with the house pipe, from which defective joint the gas leaked into the house. The allegations in each paragraph seem to be sufficient, including allegations as to the appellee's freedom from contributory negligence, although as to the latter allegations the complaint was perhaps subject to a motion to make more specific and certain.
With their general verdict the jury returned answers to interrogatories submitted to them, and from these answers, as also from the evidence, it appears: That the appellee is an aged woman, living in the family of her grandson, Thomas Crabb; and that, on December 18, 1892, the appellant began to furnish gas to the house of Mr. Crabb, having entered into a contract with him for that purpose. The gas was received by a pipe passing through the outer wall of the cellar, in which a meter was placed by the company. Mr. Crabb's family consisted of himself, his wife, their child, and the appellee. He was engaged in daily work away from home, and his wife conducted a small store on the ground floor and in the front part of the house. The house had already been properly piped for gas by Mr. Crabb, who had also extended a pipe into the cellar ready to be attached by the company to its gas main in the street; and the company did so attach the house pipe to its main by a connecting pipe. A short time after the attachments were so made and the gas began to be furnished, it was noticed by the family that gas was escaping into the store and other rooms of the house. Before notifying appellant of the leak, a man was sent into the cellar to examine the pipe, and he found that the gas was leaking through a part of the pipe put in by the company, consisting of a cracked elbow attached to the house pipe. The leak was temporarily closed by candle grease. Very soon, however, the gas again began to escape and to permeate the house, and notice was sent to the gas company to repair the leak. In response to this request, the company sent an employe, named Brannon, who applied what is known as "plumber's cement" to the cracked elbow, and thus, for the time, stopped the flow of gas. The jury find that Brannon did not know how to apply the cement properly, and soon after his work the gas again began to escape. The explosion occurred on Wednesday evening, January 18, 1893, just one month after the gas had been introduced into the house. On the Sunday morning preceding, the gas was noticed in dangerous quantities, and Mr. Crabb shut it off from the street, to stop the flow into the house. On Monday afternoon he again turned on the gas. At the time when the house pipes were attached to the street mains to supply the house with gas, the company placed an appliance, being a stopcock with a wrench ready for use, between the wall of the building and the meter, for the purpose of cutting off the gas whenever it should be desired to do so. The manner of using this appliance was at the time pointed out to Mr. Crabb, and he understood it, and had no trouble in shutting off the gas on Sunday morning and turning it on again on Monday afternoon. When the gas was so shut off at the stopcock, the flow from the mains ceased entirely, and there was no escape of gas into the house. After the gas was turned on by Mr. Crabb on Monday afternoon, it soon began to escape again into the rooms, and notice was again sent to the company that afternoon, to come and repair the pipe. On the next, or Tuesday, afternoon, being the day before the explosion, the company sent the same employe, Brannon, to attend to the leak. After such examination and repair as he made, he turned on the gas and informed Mrs. Crabb that it was now all right; and it appears that on the same evening this information was communicated by her to appellee. The gas, however, still continued to escape from the cracked elbow into the house, and in greater quantities, until the evening of the next day, when it exploded.
The appellee had lived for some time with her grandson and as a member of his family. She had been there continuously during the month from the day when the gas was admitted into the house until it exploded and wrecked the house, on the day of her injury. During all the time that there had been the smell of escaping gas, she had been in and about all the rooms of the house and had ample opportunity of detecting the odor. Except that her hearing was not good, she had the full use of all her faculties and her senses, including the sense of smell, and was a person of ordinary intelligence and understanding. During the day of the explosion and the days immediately prior thereto, the odor of escaping gas was plainly discernible in all parts of the house; and Mr. Crabb and his wife were told by persons visiting them that the gas then escaping into the house was dangerous. At the same time the appellee was in daily communication with Mr. and Mrs. Crabb, and was in and about all the rooms of the house, including the store in which the explosion took place. The jury further find that on the day of the explosion, and on the Sunday, Monday and Tuesday preceding, the odor of gas was plainly discernible to any one using ordinary diligence. The cellar did not extend under the storeroom; but there was a shallow place thereunder, between the ground and the floor, separated from the cellar by a wall. Through this wall there was an aperture by which the gas, escaping from the cracked elbow, entered into the space beneath the floor of the storeroom, and thence penetrated above. At one end of the store was a closet, and into this, the gas was collected in an excessive amount, and from this point the explosion originated. Mrs. Crabb had sold a cigar to a customer and gave him a match to light it. The appellee was at the time present with Mrs. Crabb. The customer stood close to the closet when he struck the match, and immediately the gas took fire and exploded.
We do not understand that the able and ingenious counsel for appellant contends seriously that these facts do not show negligence on the part of the company. The company was supplying the house of Thomas Crabb with artificial gas, a penetrating, elusive and explosive material, and hence one that was at any moment liable to become dangerous unless carefully guarded. The company therefore owed a duty to all persons who might be injured by the gas, to use ordinary and adequate care in delivering the substance into the residence in question. Even if the company did not know of the cracked elbow at the time it was attached to and made a part of the conducting pipe from the street mains to the house, it did know of this defect after the repeated calls for its repair, but still wholly failed to make the repair by removing the cracked elbow or by effectually closing the crack known to exist in it. Moreover, the company's agent, after professing to have made a final examination, turned on the gas and assured the family that everything was now all right and that they might therefore rest secure, notwithstanding the strong odor of gas, which he told them must come from the lamp post on the street. No refinements of reasoning can show that such conduct was not culpable negligence.
But counsel for appellant does earnestly contend that the facts found by the jury and shown in the evidence, disclose contributory negligence on the part of the appellee, or, at least, that she has not established her freedom from such contributory negligence.
In this, also, we are unable to agree with counsel. Because the gas had penetrated the various parts of the house in dangerous quantities it does not follow that the occupants were...
To continue reading
Request your trial