Toohey v. Equitable Gas Co.

• Citation: 179 Pa. 437,36 A. 314
• Decision Date: 04 January 1897
• Docket Number: 114
• Parties: Patrick J. Toohey v. The Equitable Gas Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

36 A. 314

179 Pa. 437

Patrick J. Toohey v. The Equitable Gas Company, Appellant

No. 114

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 4, 1897

Argued November 2, 1886

Appeal, No. 114, Oct. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1894, No. 487, on verdict for plaintiff. Reversed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before WHITE, J.

At the trial it appeared that on June 24, 1892, plaintiff was injured by the bursting of an eight inch valve used in the testing of the pressure of a gas well of the defendant company. The circumstances of the accident are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court charged in part as follows:

[The plaintiff testified that the day before the final testing of the well he had a conversation with Mr. Brown, the president of the company, when he expressed his fears of an accident or of danger, at least, in testing the well with the gate valve then on it. He had a conversation with Mr O'Donnell the day before that, perhaps, or on that day -- I think he said the day before the conversation with Mr. Brown, in which he said he didn't like to test the well, that he was present at a well where a man was killed, and he said something to Mr. O'Donnell about whether this gate valve was sufficiently strong. Mr. O'Donnell did not reply. There is nothing in that to enable the plaintiff to recover, because he was not misled in any way by anything that Mr. O'Donnell said or failed to say. But, he said in conversation with Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown said it would bear a pressure of upwards of one thousand pounds. Now, Mr. Brown denies that he used such an expression or said anything of the kind, but says that he knew nothing about these valves, knew nothing on the subject, that it was Mr. Toohey's duty to see to those things and he relied upon his men. Now, the first question here is: Did Mr. Brown use that expression? And the next question would be what effect it had on the plaintiff. What was the meaning of that expression? Suppose he said to the plaintiff, "It will bear a pressure of upwards of a thousand pounds." Was there any guaranty that it would? Was it anything more than a mere expression of opinion on the part of Mr. Brown? Did Mr. Brown know as much on the subject as Mr. Toohey himself did? It was Mr. Toohey's business. He had been testing wells for two years. He had put on these very valves. Did he not know as much as or more than Mr. Brown? In other words, did that expression of Mr. Brown induce him to take part in the testing of that well? But even if you find, gentlemen, that Mr. Brown did use that expression, that, of itself, will not justify a verdict for the plaintiff. You must go further. You must believe that the expression removed the fears that the plaintiff had on the subject, and induced him to take part in the testing of the well.]

Defendant's point and answer thereto were as follows:

That under the pleadings and all the evidence the verdict must be for the defendant. Answer: The above point is refused. [1]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,556. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned among others were (1, 3) above instructions quoting them.

The first specification of error is sustained and the judgment is reversed.

Johns McCleave, with him D. T. Watson, for appellant. -- If the master had no reason to suppose that the device which caused the injury was not safe, he is not liable. He is only bound to furnish machinery and tools which are reasonably safe: Faber v. Carlisle Mfg. Co., 126 Pa. 387. The master is bound to furnish appliances of ordinary character and reasonable safety only: Titus v. Bradford, B. & K.R.R., 136 Pa. 618.

A. M. Brown, with him Thomas M. Brown, for appellee. -- The duty which a master owes to a servant is to provide him with safe tools and machinery: Baker v. R.R., 95 Pa. 211; McCombs v. Pittsburgh & W. Ry., 130 Pa. 182; Del. River Engine Works v. Nuttall, 3 Del. County Rep. 401; Kinney v. Corbin, 132 Pa. 343; Diehl v. Iron Co., 140 Pa. 487. One who is hired to perform a special work, but is set to perform a different and more dangerous task, without being first informed of its danger, or having an opportunity to notice it, may recover damages for an injury sustained: Pittsburg R.R. v. Sentmeyer, 92 Pa. 276; Payne v. Reese, 100 Pa. 301; Bier v. Mfg. Co., 130 Pa. 446; Glossen v. Gehman, 147 Pa. 619; Murphy v. Crosan, 98 Pa. 495; Lee v. Electric Light Co., 1 Lackawanna Jurist, *19.

Before STERRETT, C.J., WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL and FELL, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS:

The business of the defendant corporation was the production transportation and sale of natural gas. The plaintiff was employed as a field superintendent by the defendant. His business included a general oversight over the drilling of gas wells, over the shutting in and testing of wells in which gas was found, and over the connecting of such wells, with the general line, as showed a sufficient pressure of gas for that purpose. He had occupied the same position for about two years and was familiar with its duties and its dangers. In June, 1892, while engaged in shutting in a new well, known as the Kidd well, and testing its pressure, he was injured by the explosion of a valve; and this action was brought against his employer to recover damages for the injury sustained at that time. The right to recover rests on an allegation of negligence on the part of the gas company in not providing the plaintiff with "suitable fittings and instrumentalities for the duty and work required of said plaintiff, and for safely undertaking and accomplishing the purpose of shutting off the gas well." The statement filed by the plaintiff alleges that the fittings and instrumentalities actually furnished were wholly insufficient, and that...