Stoughton v. Manufact'rs Nat. Gas Co.

Citations

• 159 Pa. 64
• 28 A. 227
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1478

Syllabus

<p>Negligence— Gas — Explosion.</p> <p>Plaintiff’s house among others was supplied with natural gas by defendant, a gas company. Upon their line the gas company had placed a regulator, to reduce to a point of safety the pressure of the gas in the houses supplied. The action of the regulator was liable to be affected by cold, and to counteract this a small gas jet was allowed to burn just under the regulator. The theory of plaintiff was that this gas jet had caused the joints where the regulator was attached to the line to open so as to permit the escape of gas therefrom; and • that this gas taking fire had increased the heat,until the regulator was destroyed; and the gas, liberated from restraint, had rushed into the plaintiff’s house with more force than his plumbing could withstand, and taking fire had consumed the house. Held. that the question of defendant’s negligence was for the jury.</p> <p>Contributory negligence — Sudden peril — Question for jury.</p> <p>In the above case, plaintiff, becoming aware of the presence of an unusual quantity and pressure of gas, went down into his cellar to turn it off at his. furnace. The pressure was too strong to be controlled by the cut-off at the furnace, but as he stood by the furnace he was within three feet of the cut-off at the outer wall of the cellar, and only had to raise his arm and turn the valve in order to control the gas. This he did not do. Plaintiff sought to explain his failure to use the means of protection within his reach, by alleging that his situation was one of great danger, and that the excitement occasioned by it, and by the warning of his wife, led him to rush from the cellar without an instant’s delay. The neighboring houses were saved by the use of the cut-off. Held, that the question as to plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury.</p>