Baker v. Westmoreland & Cambria Natural Gas Co.

Citations

• 157 Pa. 593
• 27 A. 789
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1456
• 33 W.N.C. 161

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Conflict of evidence — Question for jury.</p> <p>When the facts are admitted or so clearly and conclusively proved as to admit of no reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the court to declare the law applicable to them; but when material facts are disputed, or even in doubt, or inferences of fact are to be drawn from the testimony, it is the exclusive province of the jury to determine what the facts are, and apply them to the law as declared by the court.</p> <p>Evidence — Declarations of agent — Lineman.</p> <p>Declarations of a lineman of a natural gas company made to a person about connecting with the pipe line, to the effect that the gas had been stopped off by a valve, and that there would be no danger of making a connection, are admissible in an action to recover damages for injuries caused by an explosion resulting from the gas being forced at an extraordinary pressure through the main before plaintiff’s plumbing was in a condition to keep it from his house.</p> <p>Contributory negligence — Burden of proof.</p> <p>Contributory negligence is matter of defence, and the onus probandi is on the defendant, unless the plaintiff’s own evidence sufficiently discloses the fact of contributory negligence. In that event, the plaintiff cannot recover, and of course defendant is relieved from the necessity of proving what has already been established by the plaintiff’s evidence. If, however, the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, without disclosing contributory negligence, the defendant must assume the burden of making out his defence.</p>