Triple-State Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. Wellman

• Decision Date: 29 October 1902
• Citation: 70 S.W. 49,114 Ky. 79
• Parties: TRIPLE-STATE NATURAL GAS & OIL CO. v. WELLMAN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

70 S.W. 49

114 Ky. 79

TRIPLE-STATE NATURAL GAS & OIL CO. v. WELLMAN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 29, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by J. F. Wellman against the Triple-State Natural Gas & Oil Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Joseph P. O'Brien and Hager & Stewart, for appellant.

Theobald & Theobald, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

Appellant is engaged in the business of supplying natural gas to Ashland, Ky. Huntington, W. Va., Ironton, Ohio, and other cities in that vicinity. Its wells are in Martin county, Ky and it has a pipe line which passes through Louisa, Ky. At Louisa it furnished the gas to the sawmill of L. D. Boggs. There was a pipe running from the main to the mill, and just inside of the mill was a meter. Between the meter and the faucet to be used in turning on the gas for the mill was a regulator, which reduced the pressure so that the gas did not pass into the meter with the full pressure that was on the main. Appellee, Wellman, had gone to the mill seeking work of Boggs. Just as Wellman was leaving the mill, Boggs went to turn on the gas. By oversight he turned the wrong cock turning what was known as the "by-pass," which turned upon the meter the full pressure of the main, which was 120 pounds. The meter exploded, and a piece of the meter struck Wellman on the leg, breaking it, and causing him other painful injuries, for which he sued, and recovered judgment against the gas company for $2,000. The testimony on the trial took a wide range, but, without going into it minutely we are satisfied it shows no negligence on the part of the company, unless it is responsible for the negligence of Boggs, or was an insurer of its gas, and is responsible, at all events, if it failed to keep it confined. Counsel for the appellee, realizing this, has rested his case on these two grounds, and we deem it unnecessary to extend the opinion by noticing other points on which evidence was introduced.

We do not think there is a reasonable doubt that the sole cause of the accident was Boggs' turning the wrong cock. The cock at the by-pass was found turned after the explosion. All was quiet until Boggs made the turn with a monkey wrench. Then a frying sound set up, which was immediately followed by the explosion. If it be true that the by-pass cock was already turned, and that Boggs turned only cock No. 1, admitting the gas to the meter, still the company would not be answerable for the explosion, unless it is responsible for the negligence of Boggs, because he had charge of the premises and of the turning on of the gas, and it was incumbent on him to see that all was right before turning it on. The case of Rylands v. Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330, is cited to the proposition that a party collecting or having any dangerous substance on his premises is responsible at all events if it escapes and injures another; but that case has been very much modified by the later English cases, and is generally disapproved in this country. In the subsequent case of Box v. Jubb, 4 Exch. Div. 76, the defendants had a reservoir, which they used in operating their mill. The reservoir overflowed, and damaged the lands of the plaintiff by reason of a flood of water coming down from a reservoir, the property of a third person, at a considerable distance from the defendants' reservoir. The defendants were held not responsible. This case and Nichols v. Marsland, L. R. 10 Exch. 255, lay down the rule that, if the person who has collected the water has done all that reasonable care and skill can do, he is not liable for damage by acts over which he has no control, and that a distinction must be drawn between the keeping of a tiger or other dangerous wild beasts, which get loose accidentally or by the fault of others, and a reasonable use of property in a way beneficial to the community. In Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N.Y. 476, 10 Am. Rep. 623, a steam boiler exploded from a secret defect, the fault of the boiler maker. It was held that the owner, who had used due care, was not responsible to an adjoining proprietor, whose buildings were damaged by the explosion. See, also, Gas Co. v. Kaufman (Ky.) 48 S.W. 434. In Flint v. Gaslight Co., 3 Allen, 343; Id., 9 Allen, 552,--a gas fitter, who...