Sowers v. McManus

Citations

• 214 Pa. 244
• 63 A. 601
• 1906 Pa. LEXIS 634

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Dynamite—Explosion—Burden of proof — Evidence.</p> <p>While the possession of dynamite to be used for a lawful purpose is neither unlawful nor negligent, the person in possession of it, is, as to third parties, bound to the highest degree of care, and failure to take every reasonable precaution to prevent explosion of it while in storage, is negligence. If an explosion occurs resulting in an injury, the burden of proof rests upon the person injured of showing either the specific act of negligence that caused the explosion, or such circumstances surrounding it as would justify the inference that the degree of care required by the law had not been observed. The maxim res ipsa loquitur has no application in such a case.</p> <p>In an action against a contractor to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by an explosion of dynamite, a witness for the plaintiff testified that dynamite had “possibly” been kept in a shanty and that in the morning about two hours before the explosion occurred he saw a few pieces of what he supposed was dynamite lying on the ground near a fire which an employee of the defendant had built near the shanty. The witness did not attempt to testify that defendant had any quantity of dynamite stored anywhere. There was no evidence to show what caused the explosion. Held, that the court committed no error in giving binding instructions for defendant.</p>