Wolff v. Buzzards Bay Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1967 |
| Citation | 353 Mass. 57,228 N.E.2d 94 |
| Parties | Louis WOLFF v. BUZZARDS BAY GAS COMPANY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John Larkin Thompson, Boston (Paul J. Dolan, Boston, with him), for defendant.
Richard C. Anderson, Hyannis, for plaintiff.
Before SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action of tort to recover for loss sustained by him in a fire which destroyed a house and contents located in Falmouth and owned by him. The house was unoccupied from September 5, 1960, unitl May 31, 1961, when the fire occurred. A plumber employed by the plaintiff shut off the water and gas in the fall of 1960. Thereafter, over a period of months during the winter and spring, the plaintiff received bills from the defendant company for gas furnished to the premises. To each of these he replied in writing that the house was unoccupied and indicated that he could not understand why he was receiving the bills, most of which he paid. The defendant company answered on a number of occasions that if he would arrange to have a key made available it would check the premises. In fact, a gas line ran from a street gas main to the premises, entering through the foundation of the house into a crawl space in the cellar. There was a shut off valve in the street as well as another valve on the street side of the gas company meter which was located in the crawl space. The door to the crawl space was not, and could not be, locked.
On May 19, 1961, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant company that he would be at the premises on May 24 about 1 P.M. and that he desired a gas company representative to meet him there to check the meter and the cause of gas consumption. He and his wife went to the premises on that day and waited two or three hours but no representative of the defendant appeared. On the day of the fire, a licensed plumber and gas fitter went to the house to turn on the water, gas and electricity. While in the crawl space he noticed the odor of gas. He endeavored to turn off the valve on the street side of the meter with a wrench and the valve core came off in his hand. The Falmouth fire chief found this valve to have been broken off, with evidence of corrosion where the break occurred. The flow of gas into the house was shut off at the street service box during the fire. The fire was described by the gas inspector for Falmouth as being fed by gas, a condition which he observed upon his arrival at the blaze. From the date when it received the plaintiff's first letter, dated October 19, 1960, the defendant made no investigation of the situation.
The defendant has excepted to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. The motion presents the question whether there was any evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff that would support his cause of action. Howes v. Kelman, 326 Mass. 696, 697, 96 N.E.2d 394, and cases cited.
The jury could have found that the defendant failed to employ the reasonable care required to prevent the escape of gas into the plaintiff's house 'and that degree of care, in view of the dangerous character of gas and its tendency to escape * * * commensurate with the danger that would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. Smith Lumber Co.
...77, 362 N.E.2d 712 (1977); Suiter v. The Ohio Valley Gas Company, 10 Ohio St.2d 77, 225 N.E.2d 792 (1967); Wolff v. Buzzards Bay Gas Company, 353 Mass. 57, 228 N.E.2d 94 (1967); Brown v. Wisconsin Natural Gas Company, 59 Wis.2d 334, 208 N.W.2d 769 (1973); Firestone v. R. H. Lincoln, Inc., 2......
-
Rosado v. Boston Gas Co., s. 88-P-487
...goes to the jury. See, e.g., Barbeau v. Buzzards Bay Gas Co., 308 Mass. 245, 247-248, 31 N.E.2d 522 (1941); Wolff v. Buzzards Bay Gas Co., 353 Mass. 57, 59, 228 N.E.2d 94 (1967). Courts set the outer limits of care so that a jury does not exact precautions beyond the bounds of reason. Holme......
-
Reil v. Lowell Gas Co.
...170 N.E.2d 330, in which the original papers show a stipulation that the gas company owned the service pipe; Wolff v. Buzzards Bay Gas Co., Mass.1967, 228 N.E.2d 94. Compare Bristol Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Municipal Lighting Plant Comm. of Taunton, 347 Mass. 668, 669, 673, 200 N.E.2d 260 (......
-
Great N. Ins. Co. v. E. Propane Gas, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-12955-JGD
...to escape, means care commensurate with the danger that would probably result if such care were lacking."); Wolff v. Buzzards Bay Gas Co., 353 Mass. 57, 59, 228 N.E.2d 94, 96 (1967) (gas company liable for explosion when it failed to investigate a leak; "jury could have found that the defen......