St. Clair v. Edison Electric Light Co.

Citations

• 38 Pa. Super. 228
• 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 118

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Electric light companies — Explosion in conduit — Upheaval of street — Evidence—Presumption of negligence — Res ipsa loquitur.</p> <p>1. Whore an electric light company in the exercise of its special franchises interferes with the ordinary right of the public to the injury of a citizen in the pursuance of that right by causing a violent upheaval in the street, a duty of explanation is on the company, when the place where the accident originated is beneath the ground in the exclusive care of the defendant, not accessible to the ordinary observation of persons outside, and if the thing can be explained at all that only can be done by the company. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in such a case, and the burden is on the defendant to disprove negligence.</p> <p>2. In an action against an electric light company to recover damages for personal injuries, there is sufficient evidence of negligence of the defendant, apart from the mere happening of the accident, to submit to the jury, where the plaintiff shows that his injuries were caused by the upheaval of a portion of the street where he was walking, that this was caused by the explosion in a conduit of the defendant, that a fire had been burning in the conduit for four hours before the accident with the knowledge of the defendant’s superintendent, that defendant’s employees removed the manhole covers letting in increased currents of air into the conduit without cutting off the electric current, although a fire official requested that it should be done, and that the letting of air into the conduit and continuing the electric current under the circumstances were in the opinions of persons expert in the business improper and dangerous acts.</p>