Hashman v. Wyandotte Gas Co.

Citations

• 83 Kan. 328
• 111 P. 468
• 1910 Kan. LEXIS 531

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Evidence — Circumstantial—Finding that Gas which Exploded Came from Defendant’s Underground Pipes. Although there was no direct evidence that the natural gas which exploded and injured appellee came from the gas pipes of appellant, the fact that on two different occasions just before the explosion gas came up through the ground, caught fire and burned above appellant’s gas pipes close to the place of the explosion, together with the fact that the pipes had been in the ground considerable time, and had rusted and scaled to quite an extent, justified the inference drawn by the jury that the gas which exploded and caused the injury came from the pipes of the appellant.</p> <p>2. Notice — Defective Underground Gas Pipes — Circumstantial Evidence. The burning of the escaping gas on the streets in which the pipes were laid and in a densely populated section of the city justified the inference that the appellant knew or should have known of the defective condition of its gas pipes.</p> <p>3. Special Questions — Construction and Contents. In asking for the submission to the jury of special interrogatories it is the duty of counsel to frame each question so as to present only a single, direct and material fact, one which is within the issues of the case.</p> <p>4. Special Findings — Consistency with General Verdict. The answers to special questions examined and found not to be in conflict with the general verdict.</p>