1 knowledge that the gas was escaping into the plaintiff's house, and by the use of due care could not ascertain the fact, and that as soon as they found that there was a leak they made proper research to ascertain where it was, and showed due diligence in trying to stop it, the plaintiff cannot recover for damages sustained by him after the time when, in the exercise of due care on his part, he might have given notice to the defendants of the presence of the gas in his house. Hunt v. Lowell Gas-Light Co., 1 Allen, 343 (1861). 36. Explosion. Contributory Negligence. Notice on Gas Bills. - In an action to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff from an explosion of gas, it appeared that there was a break in the defendants' main pipe large enough to allow an escape of gas; that, although the escape of gas was discovered at night, nothing was done by the plaintiff till the next morning; that all consumers were notified on the back of their bills to inform the gas manager at once in case a leak was discovered; that in the morning a plumber was called by the plaintiff, who, in searching for the leak with a candle, caused the explosion; and it was held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and could not maintain the action. Parkin v. Wirksworth Gas Co., 26 Gas J. 946. Where the Plaintiff is a Minor. Evidence. In 37. Contributory Negligence. Minor Child. an action against a gas-light company for damages for an injury to the plaintiff by the inhalation of gas which escaped from the defendants' gas-pipes in the street opposite to the house occupied by the plaintiff and her father, and over which the plaintiff had no control, it was held that the plaintiff, being a minor child, and under the care of her father, could not maintain the action without evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants in keeping their pipes in repair, and must introduce evidence of ordinary care both of herself and her father, and that any want of ordinary care on the part of her father, which contributed to the injury, would prevent her from maintaining her action. Holly v. Boston Gas-Light Co., 8 Gray, 123. 38. Contributory Negligence.— Infant Plaintiff. Evidence. In an action by the minor plaintiff for damages from the inhalation of the defendants' gas, which escaped from a main pipe in the street, it appeared that the plaintiff slept with his mother in a room without gas fixtures, and in the morning the mother was found dead and the plaintiff insensible, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff or his mother had notice of the escape of gas, or was conscious of its presence, in time to leave or take any precautions or prevent its consequences by opening the windows, and there was evidence that the mother was a sober and prudent woman, and that on the day before there was no smell in the street; and it was held that this was sufficient evidence of due care on the part of the plaintiff. Smith v. Boston Gas-Light Co., 129 Mass. 318 (1880). Minor. In an ac 39. Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff. tion for damages against a gas company for injuries from an explosion of gas caused by the negligence of the defendants' agent, it was held that the plaintiff, being a minor, was not prevented from maintaining her suit, nor could she be considered guilty of contributory negligence on account of negligence on the part of her parent, which partly occasioned the accident; and it was held further, that, had the plaintiff been an adult, there would have been no ground for charging her with personal negligence, and that she was not more chargeable for being an infant of tender years. Lannen v. Albany Gas-Light Co., 46 Barb. 264; s. c. 44 N. Y. 459. Responsibility of Landlord for Tenant's Negligence. - Contributory Negligence. 40. Explosion. Stop-Cocks. Landlord and Tenant. A gas company incorporated by act of Parliament with the usual powers to take up pavements, &c., had for some years supplied gas to a house belonging to the plaintiff, the only means of shutting it off being by a stop-cock within the house, the key of which was kept by the occupier. The last tenant, on quitting, gave notice to the company that he should not require any further supply of gas, and one of the gas company's workmen, at his request, removed a chandelier from one of the rooms, leaving the end of the pipe properly secured. The inside fittings of the house were the property of the plaintiff. While the house remained untenanted, the gas, by some unexplained means, escaped, and an explosion took place, by which the house was considerably damaged. In an action against the company, alleging a breach of duty on their part in not taking proper means to prevent the influx of the gas into the house, the judge having upon the above facts directed a nonsuit, the court declined to interfere; and it was held that there was no obligation on the part of the defendants to place stop-cocks on the outside of the house; and it was further held to be negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which would be a sufficient defence to the action, that he had not seen himself that the stop-cock inside the house was closed before gas was turned on again. Per CURIAM: "In this case the tenant of the house must be identified with the plaintiff himself, who must be responsible for not taking care that the stop-cock inside the house was properly turned." Holden v. Liverpool New Gas & Coke Co., 3 Manning, G. & S. 1; 3 Com. Bench, 1 (1846). Negligence of Tenant. 41. Explosion. Contributory Negligence. In an action against a gas-light company for injury to the plaintiff's house, caused by an explosion of gas which had escaped from the main pipe in the street through the alleged negligence of the defendant company, it appeared that the plaintiff's tenant, perceiving a smell of gas in the night, lighted a candle and went into the basement of the house to see where the smell came from; that thereupon the gas was ignited by the candle, and an explosion took place which damaged the plaintiff's house; and it was held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the injury was caused by the defendants' negligence, and that the negligence of the tenant did not contribute materially thereto; that the plaintiff must show by a fair preponderance of evidence that he was in the exercise of due care; that if the tenant, on discovering the presence of gas, did not take reasonable means and precautions to remove and exclude the gas, or, without knowledge of what precautions should be taken, did not make proper efforts to notify the defendants that gas was escaping into the house, and if he recklessly brought the flame of the candle into contact with the gas and air of the room, his want of care would prevent the plaintiff's recovery, although the defendants were negligent, and it was held also that if the tenant accidentally ignited the gas, or if he reasonably supposed the gas to proceed from the furnace, and under that impression went with the candle into the cellar to examine the furnace, the plaintiff might recover. Bartlett v. The Boston Gas-Light Company, 122 Mass. 209. III. WHERE ACTS OF THIRD PERSON CONTRIBUTE. 42. Explosion caused by Frost. Negligence of Plumber. Agency. In an action for damages for injuries caused by an explosion of gas, it appeared that a gas-pipe was broken by the action of the frost in consequence of its having been laid, by the defendants' negligence, too near the surface of the ground; that the gas escaped into the cellar of the plaintiff's house; that the plaintiff called a plumber to ascertain where the leak was, and that the plumber, holding a lighted candle in his hand, opened the cellar door, whereupon the gas was ignited and an explosion took place; and it was held that, whether the plumber was guilty of negligence or not, he was not the agent of the plaintiff, so as to make the plaintiff answerable for his negligence, and that where a man sustains an injury from the separate negligence of two persons employed to do two separate things, he may maintain an action against both or either. Schermerhorn v. Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 5 Daly (N. Y. C. P.), 144 (1874). 43. Injury to Pipe by City Workmen. -Duty of Gas Companies. Question for Jury. In an action for damages for injuries to the plaintiff's greenhouse, caused by the defendants' neglect in allowing gas to escape from their pipes, the defendants claimed that there was no negligence on their part, and that the leak was caused by the negligence of the city officers in not properly packing the earth under a pipe in building a sewer; but it was held by POTTER J. that "the defendants, in managing a dangerous element, were bound not only to due care on the part of themselves and their servants, but also to due care in preventing injury from the careless or wrongful meddling with their works on the part of others. They could not interfere with or prevent the city from building a sewer, but they had a right to, and were bound to see that, in restoring the earth to its place, their own pipes were properly supported, and, if injured, to see that the injury was repaired as soon as it could reasonably be done," and that whether they exercised due care in these particulars was a question for the jury. Butcher v. Providence Gas Co., 12 R. I. 149 (1878). · Agency. — Negli 44. Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff. gence of Gas-Fitter. - In an action by the plaintiff against a gas company for damages caused by an explosion of gas which had escaped from a pipe into the plaintiff's premises, and then had been exploded by the negligent action of a gas-fitter who was employed by the plaintiff in another room, and who entered the place, where the gas was leaking, with a lighted candle, it was held that the defendants were not relieved from liability by the negligence of the gas-fitter, who was not in the service of the plaintiff; and it was held further by MARTIN B. that even if the person whose negligence was the immediate cause of the explosion had been in the plaintiff's service, the defendants would nevertheless have been liable. Burrows v. March Gas & Coke Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 67 (1870); L. R. 7 Ex. 96. 45. Damages. Explosion caused by Theft of Pipe. — Question for Jury. In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from an explosion of gas in Turnagain Lane, it appeared that the explosion was caused by the theft of a gas-pipe and the going into the cellar with a light; that the evidence was conflicting, whether notice had been given to the company of the leak; and that the secretary of the company testified that the complaint book showed that no notice had been given. And it was held by BOVILL C. J. that it was a question |