Koelsch v. Philadelphia Co.
Citations
- 152 Pa. 355
- 25 A. 522
- 1893 Pa. LEXIS 980
Syllabus
<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Negligence — Duty of natural gas company as to pipes.</p> <p>It is the duty of a natural gas company to maintain pipes and fittings of such, material and workmanship and laid in the ground with such skill and care as to provide against the escape of gas therefrom when new, and also to maintain suph a system of inspection as will insure reasonable promptness in the detection of all leaks that may occur from the deterioration of the material of the' pipes, or from any other cause within the circumspection of men of ordinary skill in the business.</p> <p>Explosion of gas — Evidence sufficient for jury.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries to a house caused by an explosion of natural gas, evidence for plaintiff tended to show that on the day after the explosion defendant uncovered its main pipe in the street near the house, that, before it was fully uncovered, but after the digging had commenced, gas was seen to escape from the trench; that when the pipe was reached about thirty-six feet from the house, two or more holes or cracks were found in it, one of them having the appearance of being rusted or worn out, through which the gas poured in dense volumes; and that the street between the leak and the house was made ground, filled with' shale and broken stone so porous that gas could pass through it. Held, that, in the absence of any evidence that the gas could have reached the house from any other source, there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding that the gas which had exploded had escaped from defendant’s main.</p> <p>Injury to gas main by construction of sewer — Notice to, and duty and liar bility of, gas company.</p> <p>If an injury to a gas main be a natural and probable consequence of the construction of a sewer, by reason of the settling of the ground in close proximity to the gas main, and the gas company had knowledge or ought to have had knowledge of the construction of the sewer, it was its d
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- negligence of a disinterested third party may excuse dilatory actions of a party to the litigation
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Heydeiok
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.