Consolidated Gas Co. v. Crocker

Citations

• 82 Md. 113
• 31 L.R.A. 785
• 33 A. 423
• 1895 Md. LEXIS 99

Syllabus

<p>Liability of Gas Company for Explosion of Gas — Contributory Negligence — Notice of Leaking Gas.</p> <p>It is negligence on the part of a gas company to allow gas to escape from its pipes into a house after receiving notice that a leak existed ; and notice of the leak given to the company’s employees is notice to the company.</p> <p>Where large quantities of gas have escaped into a building and have formed by diffusion with the air an explosive compound, and this condition is known to a person entering the building, it is negligence in law to enter with a lighted candle or to strike a match after entering.</p> <p>When plaintiff moved into a certain house, the odor of escaping gas was perceptible in the cellar, and the attention of an employee of the gas company (the defendant) was called to the matter. He said that another employee would put in a new meter. When this was done the second employee said that the new meter would remedy the leak. There was evidence tending to show that the gas escaped from a main under the sidewalk. A gasoline stove was in the cellar and on the evening of the explosion plaintiff’s servant went to the cellar (which had not been opened that day) with a lighted lamp for the purpose of .using the stove. After striking several matches, she threw a basin of water containing a few spoonsful of gasoline on a pile of coal, and after again lighting the stove, which immediately went out, the servant saw a sheet of bluish flame in the direction of the steps leading up from the cellar to the dining-room where two gas jets were burning. An explosion instantly followed which damaged the building and threw the servant towards the front cellar door. This explosion occurred about ten minutes after the servant entered the cellar. The lamp suspended there by her was not injured. Afterwards a blaze was found which appeared to come from oil on the pile of coal. Held,</p> <p>xst. That under these circumstances the Court could not assume that the act of the