Chester National Bank v. Southern Pipe Line Co.

Citations

• 40 Pa. Super. 87
• 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 572

Syllabus

<p>Pipe line companies — Leakage of oil — Proximate and remote cause— Act of stranger — Burning of mill — Negligence.</p> <p>1. In an action against an oil pipe line company incorporated under the general incorporation Act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 73, and its supplement of June 2, 1883, P. L. 61, to recover damages for the burning of a mill, where it is established that there was no negligence either in the construction, maintenance or operation of the pipe line, the court commits no error in submitting to the jury the question whether the breaking of the line was the proximate cause of the burning of the mill, where the evidence shows that the distance from the pipe line to the mill was about 800 feet, that after the break the oil spread over the ground and water between the pipe line and the mill, that an idler on the scene lighted a cigar and threw the blazing match on the ground, that the oil was instantly aflame, and was carried in this flaming condition to the walls of the mill, setting it on fire, and that under certain different conditions of time or wind or tide, the flames might not have reached the mill.</p> <p>2. When conditions group themselves into unusual or varying forms; when the inference to be drawn from established facts may change with the personalty of him who makes them; when the mind hesitates to affirm just what a reasonable man would likely do under the circumstances, then the ascertainment of the legal duty becomes a mixed question of law and fact and must be submitted to a jury.</p>