Weber v. Interstate Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1955
• Citation: 268 Wis. 479,68 N.W.2d 39
• Parties: Ruth WEBER, Adm'x of the Estate of Ethel Marie Hoyt, Deceased, Respondent, v. INTERSTATE LIGHT AND POWER CO., a Wis. corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 39

68 N.W.2d 39

268 Wis. 479

Ruth WEBER, Adm'x of the Estate of Ethel Marie Hoyt Deceased, Respondent, v. INTERSTATE LIGHT AND POWER CO., a Wis. corporation, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 11, 1955.

Action commenced August 11, 1953, by Ruth Weber, administratrix of the estate of Ethel Marie Hoyt, deceased, against Interstate Light and Power Company, to recover damages for injuries sustained and for the wrongful death of Ethel Hoyt. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered April 23, 1954, defendant appeals.

The accident occurred in the city of Hudson at the cottage in which the deceased, Ethel Hoyt, lived and which she rented from a Mrs. Anderson. The explosion took place on the morning of March 21, 1953, when Miss Hoyt lit a match in her kitchen. She did not turn on any burners before she lit the match. The gas furnished by the defendant gas company was 1000 B.T.U. Propane, which is twice as powerful as coal gas. The gas meter which registered the flow of gas into the cottage was located on the outside of the cottage and available to the meter reader at all times. There had been trouble in the line with water in the pipes, and this particular meter had been insulated and had a box around it. The Andersons, who owned the cottage, lived next door, about 40 feet away. From Monday to Friday Miss Hoyt worked during the day, leaving home at about 7 a. m. and returning at 5 or 5:30 p. m. Miss Hoyt was seriously burned from the explosion and later died, suffering great pain and other damage. Upon inspection after the accident, it was found that one of the valves in the gas stove was defective at the threads.

Miss Hoyt had at various times complained to different people, including Mrs. Anderson, about a 'funny smell.' Complaints were made numerous times about the gas bills being high; and Miss Hoyt had finally ordered the gas shut off. Further reference will be made to this matter in the opinion.

The case was tried to court and jury. In a special verdict, the jury found that, after being notified by Ethel Hoyt to discontinue the gas service at the cottage, the defendant gas company was negligent (a) in failing to shut off the gas at the meter; (b) in failing to inspect the stove and the gas connection inside the Hoyt residence for possible leaks; that such negligence was causal; and that Ethel Hoyt was free from negligence.

Ramsdell, King & Carroll, Eau Claire, for appellant.

Thos. J. O'Brien, Hudson, Thoreen, Thoreen & Lawson, Stillwater, Minn., for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Chief Justice.

From the evidence there is no question but that the valve in the stove of the Hoyt cottage had been faulty for some time and was the cause of the explosion. It was found to be defective at the threads and after the explosion was cracked wide open. It was the only valve, even after the explosion, which was cracked.

The rule with respect to leaks from appliances of a customer has been quoted from Miller v. Wichita Gas Co., 139 Kan. 729, 732, 33 P.2d 130, 132, in the recent case of Bellefuil v. Willmar Gas Co., Minn., 66 N.W.2d 779, 783: "'A gas company is guilty of negligence if a leak in a customer's pipes and appliances causes injury to persons or property, provided the company has sufficient notice of such leak or leaks, and having such notice (a) negligently inspects or negligently repairs; (b) agrees and assumes to inspect and repair, and then fails to do so; (c) refuses to inspect and repair knowing a dangerous condition exists, and with such knowledge fails to shut off its gas until the owner can have his pipes and appliances properly repaired."'

All of the authorities support the view that gas is a dangerous agent and that it is the duty of a gas company to take a high degree of care to avoid injury and damage resulting from its escape.

'A higher degree of care and vigilance is required in dealing with a dangerous agency than in the ordinary affairs of life and business, which involve little or no risk of injury to persons or property. Therefore, in view of the highly dangerous character of gas and its...