# Transcript of Record — Wood v. Gas Service Co. (No. 501) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386418_1553%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1957 ## Text : e me ‘ ir ah , re United Stas Court of. ons: «Ss @ ce FOR THE EIGHTH erpegr Nos. 15,608, 15,699 and ‘No. 15 708. CIVIL. Meme Wa eS Pe en ee, t' Ne 15,698. Tue Gas Service.Company, === of ? Cc ows hae 9 SL On ‘b. No., 15,699, pahesoniesnys ee Ry ee Paes “ 4 ; 2 ; : _ Appellee. e | , , Burweut Coasrany; Inc., ‘Teron Manu- . , en Sake ~~ KPPEALED FROM B,UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Fou THE . | WESTERN D OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DIVISIGN] ED) : HONO ALBERT A: RIDGE, JUDGE. . . : | . . ee United Scatien Gourt of Appeals a FOR THE EIGHTH cikculr. = =. & ‘Nes. 15,608, 15,699 and Na, 15,700. Set eas 3 aos Appellant, | OO ee THE Gas Survice COMPANY, =| Seeks - ape vs. . Appellee.’ j ee ALFRED F, MARTi:i, ; ue o cen ‘ane | Appellant, | | | ‘Vs. a z = 7 f No. 15,699. | Tue Gas. SERVICE. COMPANY, ee ° Appellee. } °3 ‘Burweu, Company, Inc., TIPTON Manu- ~ FACTURING Co., _GLENRIDGe TROUSERS COMPANY, AND ‘Enassy Manvuractur- of. - ING Company, ea! . Appellants, , No. 15,700. Baad aes 3 | THE Gas SERvIcE Company, -APPEALED , { THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DIVISION, , HONORABLE ALBERT A. RIDGE, JUDGE. ~ Appellee. - | INDEX Vol: I. Amended Complaiat siaciadiadl PEE er uae: 1 Remdval. to the United States District Court Nenifehtecindiitimnanens’ Me Se * Defendant's Answer ._..__- , Answer of Defendant Gas ‘Service = Company to ‘Plaintiff's _ Ist Amended rn inenngeonins _ an . Verdict — itcomialaaaiinastien acca peach van a aa ey call Judgmen* Pen eRe, Ba : Pre-Trial Order, ‘Dated “January 27, "1956 sioibhneeilRagbanit sh aaecidieainal “hp - Pre-Trial Order, Dated February 29, 1956. henna a Reporter's Transcript of All ee and Proceedings at the Trial i2. ooo ‘Plairitiffs’ Evidence— Earl R. Priegel— : | Direct Examination. ne . * Vincent ‘Hecht— | | Direct Examination 8 at . Cross Examination __*_ jnibeneoseqannaaseeeeeneaNtashintadieen:- a ‘Re-Direct Examination —.~_.. 'Re-Cross Examination =": y Alfred F. Martin— Direct iienination 2 Cross Examination = edie. es MO Re- Direct Examination UE LEER EE ROS: x g. Sam Thixton— - Direct "Examination = Sa van ra Ce f ’ Cross . Examination = wie unlanalaaitbiatiieinacecuiese 33: _Re- Direct Examination CE ERI eS OA HS INDEX / 2 } ale / ‘o / / a y 9 4? } Re-Direct Examination = \ _ Cross Exaniination __ . David & Hardy— ee. 2 Di * E - 2 ti - Re-Direct Examination ... PEELE LS EIR ‘ Cross Examination. : 4 Ln ‘a. 4 Re-Direct Examination oon ik” Re-Cross Examinetion sstolaencntiin Mrs. Rose” Hardy— irect Examination ° _ Clemont McGee— ————- | Ezeminstion Cross. - Examination ‘ _ Re-Direct Examination. Naomi. Wood— | Direct. Examination —__- » .Cross Examination Defendant -by Pl C. H. Rambo (Deposition) Defendant’s Evidence— Vanston H. Ryan— —— Direct Examination AAA Oe Remar en ne ewe eens ee emees eee ete enccccetcccencceccoecs Se ‘Cross Examination Re-Direct 4 Examination Dr. Charles Leubbert— Direct Examination Cross Examination _. . + - 58 Parts of Plaintiffs’ Request -for Adindesiann, Super ; ’ with Defendant’s Answers Thereto Read. in Evidence __. ' ~Certain* interrogatories and ar Boavesnae Read to 59 ee : INDEX ~ ie, Lonnie Bell— | | ened Kolker (Deposition) EA NOD PONE Ate a a " Defehdant’s Motion. for Directed Verdict t Requested at jhe Close | Court’s Charge: to the: Jury . ceeccceepeeeeteeer Ree eros. we Plaintiffs’ Exception to. Charge - diamine Proceedings After Jury Retired to Deliberate Plaintiffs’ Objections to cerenncainat After Sond Retired - aa Verdicts. Returned - slhues ms aa Court’s Comments After. Verdicts - as Notice ‘of: Appeal to the oe States Court of Appeals for. ‘the I tinea ise neetanstnlnngpc onicelesiacininpsie 1 _ De@ignation of Record on Appeal - ae ae ae ee Docket Entries in the United States District Court 104 - Vol: II | Plaintiff's Exhibit .6, Picture Showing t Martin Building in Tipton, Missouri, in Which the Plainti Had Personal Prop- ee 8 erty at Time of the Occurrence in Question —....._-_- =: Sega ‘Personal Property A at Time of the Occurrence in stion . Se Plaintiff's Exhibit 13; Picture ‘Showing the West Watt After the Fire Was esas pula adaiibideekamiapadiddscegeiebcedianthash taggin cious 113 . Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, Picture’ inowleg the Martin Building = Aas _ Tipton, Missouri, in Which ‘the Plaintiffs Had Personal Paes . erty at Time of the Occurrence in Question _... . ..- Y 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 15, Picture Showing the Martin: Building. in“ Tipton, Missouri, in Which the Plaintiffs Had Personal ee ~3 ae ! daa oe » Loe ee woe, 4 » ie aca pce eon -ve-- 3 s / at Time of the Occurrence in Question ee _ 117° Plaintiff's’ Exhibit. 19, Picture sspkiaeacareh the North ‘Wall in the Process of Being Torn DWN ee 119 Plaintiff's Exhibit 20, . Picture Shyeing ‘tthe North Side of the . . Building As It Looked When We Were Still Fighting the Firec_ 121 Plaintiff's Exhibit 21, Picture Showing the Way the West Wall _ ‘Looked Part of the Time That There Was a Fire Inside _ - 123 Plaintiffs Exhibit: 22, Picture Showitig. the Condition and ‘the Men Working ‘here the Next Day 125 Plaintiff's Exhibit 23, Deed Dated Wevenniet 9, 1942, for the West _ Twenty-Two. Feet, or the Hilgert Building - ins 127° _ “Plaintiff's Exhibit 24, Picture Showing the Condition’ of the Front ™ of the: Office Building at the pe of — Lihat sosant 129 oe Plaintiff's Exhibit 26, Detailed Estimate f Construction Job 5 AP RE Pe rit ia and the Taken in 1964.20 Building Apartment = ‘Plaintiff's Exhibit’ ‘28, An Enlatgemient of Exhibit 27°... 135 eee _ ‘Plaintiff's Exhibit st at Dated fed, September 2 sn -* tween Central Y one : . __? gs iy Pe ~ ‘ BS - . These three cases were consolidated for trial. The Martin — ‘case was begun on March 15, 1955, by. the filing with the . ~ Clerk- of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, of . a petition, The Wood case was begun on March 22, 1955, - by the filing of a complaint in the United States ‘District ‘ Court for the Westérn Division of the Western -District.of _- Missouri.. The Biltwell case was begun on October 13, 1955, - by the filing with the Clerk of the Circuit Court.of Jack- ~ ‘son County; Missouri, of a petition. To avoid repetition, — the pleadings, orders and filings in the Martin case only are. reproduced herein. The Martin case was. tried . on an is amended complaint as follows: x ra , ~ = _ oe DEFENDANT'S ANSWER. _ ae _ ANSWER’ OF DEEENDANT Gas SERVICE CoMPANY TO: PLAITIFES, lst AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED APRIL 24, 1956. /First Defense. Se tee now the ‘defendant and for its first dédeoke — plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, States that the Court on & & objections of defendant to the filing. of.the amended com- ° _ plaint because of indefiniteness as to the place of the alleged gas leak, entered an.order making statements made at a ' pre-trial conference on January 27, 1956, a art of’ the - complaint, — order is as follows: a ee “ORDER. : "By eave of court; plaintiffs. file amended com- ' plaints, subject ‘to theory of parties,” stipulations and : statements°made at pre-trial conference as shown by | & x em] rn @ : ? transcript of record of proceedings. had at such con- > ferences and filed herein on February 4, ou ee _ Defendant i s. given ten (10) days to file answers. $5 - That on the pre-trial mney on page 2. of the record e “the following appears: - “The Court: Now, suppose you give me your theory of the case, Mr. Randall. You: ae the rs plaintiffs in all three of the. cases?. ‘ _’ Mr, Randall: Yes, sir.’ That the explosion: was ‘ caused by natural gas which had escaped from a hole é in a pipey,located. between defendant’s/ciirb stop cock and defendant’s meter on the side of Mr. Martin’s. __. _ building, and that the defendant knew or should have _ . _ known of the condition of that pipe and should-have -@ither repaired it or warned the plaintitf of the con- © - dition , shut off-the gas, while: repairs | were being made. ” Db : Defendant éucthe: states that the Amended Complaint : _ construed with the above statement of the attorney: for plaintiff on the pre-trial hearing fails to state a claim showing plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for, or to State facts sufficient to constitute a cause of. action. Aa ; defendant. ! Second Dedense.. | os \Anewarting paragraph I of the Amiended Complaint, : | defendant admits the allegations thereof. . b) Answering paragraph II of the Ariiended. Complaint, defendant“¢ Genies the. allegations thereof. ee | hard paragraph III of the Amended Complaint, defendant denies’ the allegations thereof. CSEER: 3 d) -Answering paragraph IV of. the Risended Complaint 7 : ~ defendant denies .the allegations thereof. ee 4 ‘Answering paragraph V of the Amended Complaint, ~ defendant denies the allegations ‘thereof. | : *, gg: t ) Answering paragraph VI of the Amended Complaint, , defendant denies the: allegations thereof. ~ | 8)" Ahswering paragraph VII ‘of the , Amended Com- Further answering and -for third defense, defendant states that: on or about November. 4, 1938 the. then abut- - = ting property owneg, on Moreau ‘Aveniie, JJ. Hilbert, iso as-to obtain natu gas for his property. and premises in question, installed at his expense the gas pipe between. — ..the curb stop cock and the meter above referred to and . ene to own and-.control the same, until November : 9, 1942, when plaintiff, by purchase acquired frém said — Hilbert the abutting property and premises in question, including’ the said‘ gas pipe as appurtenances to the realty conveyed and continued the use of the said pipe and gas. . appliances to serve his property and premises until after. . January 31, 1955, assuming all the rights and- obligations as a gas consumer and customer; that under the gas fran-: . --* @hises.of the city of Tipton, and the rules and regulations - then in effect on the respective dates and duly filed with - and approved by the Missauri Public. Service Commission, | . it-was the duty and obligation of the owner Martin of the premises, and as a gas consunger -and eustomer to main- tain the said gas pipe in a safegefficient and ‘proper oper- _ . ating condition and at his expense and make such repairs _a8 were required; that if the alleged explosion or fire was © cdused by a’leak in the said gas pipe such was not due to ‘any hegligence of defendant, and bars any recovery here- in: la ae ah st ee ae Fourth Defense. °- ee og -Further answering and for fourth defense defendant states that if plaintiff was damaged as alléged. in - amended complaint, such was directly due and caused’ in whole or in part to the acts. and negligence of the plain- tiff in failing to keep the building in reasonably safe. con- dition from collapse, and the appliances therein in ‘safe. ‘efficient and~ proper “operating — ineluding. the ss ] . & >... . . ¢ hice : . 4 7 , és 4 eee mS le « Said gas pipe from the curb stop peck to-the building, all . | of which directly caused or directly. cSntributed to cause ; seal alleged damages and bars any recovery herein. ‘Fifth Defense: Further anweering and for fifth ‘Seen. the defend-_ --ant denies that plaintiff is the real party in interest, and states that he. has no right or authority to maintain this suit or if he is a real party in interest as to a part of the alleged damage claimed therein there are other real par- ties who have a substantial interest in the alleged cause of action and alleged damages who have not been made parties to this. suit-and should be joined as real parties - plaintiff; that said other parties ° are certain insurance companies, to-wit: the Milwaukee Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Firemen’s Insurance Com- pany of Newark, N. J., which issued tnd carried on the- — allegedly damaged. property of. plaintiff fire and explosion policies of insurance, which said companies shortly after the fire p@jd plaintiff under “said policies in. settlement the. sum of $30,500 afd took from plaintiff an executed - assignment. instrument assigning 6t subrogating over to said insurance companies all his rights and interest in and to any alleged claim or cause of action by reason, _of:the alleged. fire and explosion, : ‘against any third party such as defendant i in this alleged action to the extent-of — $30,500; that the amended complaint should show all the real parties in interest and reveal the actual inte thereof of each, and if plaintiff is suing or attempting: to sue as a tee herein, he should disclose the trusteeship and the(respective interest of all beneficiaries; that the failure of plaintiff: Martin: to join all the real partigs in . interest and to reveal their. actual interest in the suit and proceeding constitutes a violation of the real-party in in- - terest statute and*the law, and bars any recovery. by. plain- a. - 38. ; -Wherefore,. defendant prays to be eeian inl go a hence with its costs in this behalf expended. ( Filed. in the United sans District Court cree 4, 1956.) . The answers in the Biltwell and the Wood cases are the same.as in the Martin ease qgato the issues of liability, except that the real party in interest defense _was not. as- ’ serted peers —— Wood. oe f ( Signed) Albert A. ‘Ridge, Judge. Ly 10 Dated at Renin City, Detect this o7th is of. Janv- ary; 1096. F PRE-TRIAL ORDER. At a pre-trial conference held. in the above-entitled causes, the parties appearing by .their Teapective ‘counsel, _ the following proceedings were had:; _ : ; Plaintiffs are given leave to file amended complaint in Cause No. ‘10055, supra, and to amend the complaints in Causes 9684 and 9689 by interlineation. - _ _ By the above actions plaintiffs seek to recover damages . as the result of an explosion“and fire which took ‘place in a building in Tipton, Missouri, in which the plaintiffs had, at the time, certain personal property. -It ‘is plain- tiffs’ contention thatethe explosion was due to the negli- .. gence on the part of defendant in permitting natural gas to escape from a gas pipe owned by defendant leading | - into the building im question, or that, if. said gas pipe was not owned by defendant, defendant had knowledge of cir- cumstances and conditions from which | it should have known that gas would eseape therefrom. Defendant denies that it was the owner of the gas pipe , from which any alleged gas escaped into the building in - question, and denies that it had any knowledge of any cir- cumstances that er put it on notice that gas was escap- ing. from ‘said The ‘parties =e undertake to stipulate, within fifteen . ( 15) .days from this date, the ownership of the premises and the sidewalk immediately adjacent thereto and under which the gas ‘pipe in question was located, and ‘submit the issue ‘of. ownership | of said premises and sidewalks. adja- cBAt thereto to the. Court for, determination: prior to the trial of this cause upon: the facts so stipulated; and file briefs on said issue with the Court at the time of the fil-. ing of said stipulation. . : | | Defendant’s Exhibit 1, here marked, is stile and regula tions for gas service in the chy of Tipton, Missouri, filed . with the Public Service Commission of Missouri 6n Decem- . ber 21, 1934, sass by defendant on October I, 1947, a ee 11 ‘ Defendant’s Exhibit 2, here marked, is schedule of rules and regulations ‘covering furnishing of ‘gas in Tipton, Mis- souri, filed with the Public Service Commission of Missouri | ; on January 1, 1952. : . Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 is an itemized list of damage claimed ‘by plaintiff Naomi Wood in Case No. 9684. | - Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 is an itemized list-of damage. claigned by plaintiffs in Case No. 10055. : S Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 is an itemized list of damage claimed by plaintiff in Case No. 9689.” ; The plaintiffs will submit to defendant supporting data __as to the damage claimed in each of the above exhibits, to _ the end that the parties may stipulate with respect to dam- ages claimed by the plaintiffs in the above cases. . Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 6 to. {$ herein are photographs of the ie Martin Building i in Tipton, Missouri, in which the plaintiffs _ had personal property at-the time of the occurrence in question, said: photographs being taken before and after the: explosion and fire in said building. ; Exhibits 1 and 2, and 6.to 15, inclusive, are now admitted in evidence and made a part of the record in this cause: A transcript of the proceedings had at this pre-trial conference may be referred to by the parties in explanation . — of proceedings had at this conference. The issues to be determined at the trial of this. cause are: (1) ownership of the gas pipe from which plaintiffs claim | gas escaped at the time of, the occurrence in question; and (2) duty and negligence, if any, on: the part of defendant to inspect and maintain said gas pipe.. . This cause is set for- trial on pets my 14, 1956, at 10:00 o’elock A. M.” . Plaintiffs will file trial, brief with the hea ten (10) itt _ days prior to trial. Defendant will file baie brief with the — _ Court five (5) days prior to trial. It is ordered that the trial of this cause be eccrine by the - ~ above stipulations and, agreements, unless modified 7 the. ” Court to prevent. manifest injustice. 9 oe (Signed) Albert A. Ridge,: : paths Judge. + TS te | | a ee Dated at Kansas City, Misr, this 20h day of Feb er ; ; PRAT ETE OS ESSIEN AEN LR "| WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. WESTERN DIVISION. : Naomi Woop, | ro vs. : aay :. ‘ : \ . : ° : > No. 9684. Tue Gas SERVICE ‘Company, a Corpora- tion, Ria Steet 7 sae i Defendant. } ty pee Plaintiff, °| th oP eee, ae 9689: THE Gas SERVICE ComPany, 3 se een | 7, Pe See te Defendant. ; | : es : ne ‘Qa Ot ager _. Brtwe.t Company, Inc.,; a Corporation; | ..Fypron MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a - Corporation, GLENRIDGE TROUSERS *. Company, a Corporation, and EMBASSY: _ _ ‘MANUFACTURING Company, 4 Corpo- ma _ ration, a ey eee as — oe — Tue Gas SERVICE ComPaNy, a Corpora- . ; tion, | res, , . . - Defendant. J 3 “REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF ALL EVIDENCE AND a PROCEEDINGS AT THE TRIAL. | | : Be It. Remembered that heretofore, on Monday, the 10th day.of September, 1956, the above-entitled cases came on ‘13 regularly for hearing before the Honorable Albert A. _ Ridge, one of the Judges of said court, and a jury, at .Kansas City, Missouri. | - “The Plaintiffs were represented by their dninetl, Hogs- ett, Houts, James, Randall & Hogsett, Kansas. ,City,’ Mis- | souri, by Messrs. J. D. James; Alvin: C. Randall and Thad- : deus McCanse; and Mr. Frank Quigley, Tipton, Missouri. The Defendant was represented by its counsel, Messrs. _ ) Charles M. Miller, Don: M.! Jackson and Richard L. —_—_ Kansas City, Missouri. (Whereupon, the following proceedings: were. had and _ entered of record: ) (A jury was duly’ selected. end; sworn to | . Con-—___ -_— _ solidated causes;, whereupon- counsel for the respective. parties made ee: Statements to ‘he Court and . jury. ae oe e as eo PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE. Ear R. PRIEGEL, by deposition, on behalf of plaintiffs tes- . '° tified: | 2 . ' Direct Siieitiieatie. 1 live iti California, Missouri, cidk Vas saniebinah biasa : surveyor. At the requést of plaintiffs I prepared a sur-- — vey of a portion of the city of Tipton, Missouri, including the intersections of Moreau: and . Monjfeau, ‘Osage and Moniteau,, Morgan and Osage, and Moreau and Morgan . _ Streets. The survey included the block on which the Mar- _ tin buildings stand. They stand at the west end of Block zi _ C. Exhiibt 16 is the survey that I prepared. | . The northwest corner of ‘the Martin building, designated _“X” on Exhibit 16 is 1.35 feet west of the true boundary _ of Block’ C. . The southwest. corner of that building -ex- - tended 1.10 feet west of the line marking the west boun- . dary of Block C and the east boundary of Moreau Street. _ At the center of the Martin building, that is; at a point — "halfway between the northwest corner and. the southwest . - corner of the building. I fourid that the wall was :90 feet . west of the east edge al Moreau Street and ~ west t ope oti ro -of Block ‘C. . Ths ‘distariecthat the weit ck tiedina ‘west of the east edge.of Moreau was established by my survey. Exhibit 16, being the survey, was admitted in evidence. — Exhibits 17 and 18 ‘are plats which I prepared showing the location of various gas pipes.with relation to the Mar-_. tin building and with relation to Moniteau and Moreau . Streets. (Exhibits 17 and 18 are admitted in evidence sub-’ . ject to proof of the measurements and other dat ignated “Gas Main” (Exhibit 17) was located ‘feet out from the curbing on the west side of Moreau Where — Street I show the two-inch gas pipe that crosses and then branches off north and south for some distance — on the east side of Moreau. Street, I located. it 1 . north of the alley. I was told that the two-inch- "tended east from the main to a point i Fi 2 ELS wart Fa : oe f ce ' concrete patch north, and by measuring the distance - theold pipe to the ‘south, I was able to show the of the underground pipe. _ “ 7 . Exhibit 18 is a profile.of the west side o of the ‘wall showing the sidewalk, pipe and meter box, pipe and the outline of the meter box is shown int -Tiser that extends downward from the meter box eight inches out from the building and 29 inches Then I showed an “L” connection and extended 2: the width of the sidewalk 7.6 feet and two feet into ‘street. Exhibit 18 is.drawn to a scale of one inch to fi gf ae v2 bE ie sf et id ti a a, 15 foot. The riser j is 29: indhies fren the surface of. the side- * walk ‘down ‘to the ““L” connection. Sams '6. pieeecies n Sestn, Miteeneeh, itn fais eins. , “ the chief of the volunteer fire department. I was called to _ afire in Tipton between 2:15 and 2:30.a. m. on January 31, 1955. . When I arrived.I could s¢e that the northwest corner © it pulled down. Boe a ae } | ae _ Exhibit 19 sliows the north wall in the process of be ing torysdown. | Exhibit 13 shows aH | -: Exhibit 13 was taken before Exhibit 19. Exhibit. the north side of the building as it looked when Still fighting the fire,, The light - colored marks \\ oe gee nee eae eee ne that is the after i fire-was put out. We pulled. that roof sideways’ like that: ~ 20 - we dence) door to the west of the Martin building by the Gabbert - Garage and there was a door to the north of the Martin - -building by the Skelly Oil Company. I could inot say _ that I saw marks on those buildings, and do not remem- - _ ber the condition of the doors. There were several men from the: gas company. enn” a test and I was asked to witness the test. It was made by a the Veatch Construction Company, The Veatch’ Construc- tioe Company building is just to the rear of the Martin | - , office building. The south line running across the side- walk is the one that was tested. He put on an instru- ment that resembled a tire pump with a’ gauge. He at- a ts Be it to ™ pipe an the west side of the meter be- ap te 4 ‘ "16 9¢ iia laa ads tl ata He attached it right at the _ meter, not to the meter, but to the pipe. He pumped it-up . ‘adun doe de cee dt remained ‘constant during the three ‘minutes that I watched . \ ae eae ar Cress Examination: | The tent was nusde at two or three o'clock the next'after- ‘noon. .I would say that the test was made somewhere be- ° Lan a eke I was at hae hen Ieee notice of the fire, about ble the scene of the fire. I . i : if He if F : ef Fi gE Hi § u 2% secondsfloor was down.on the first floor and was burnings I think the doors I saw were ‘solid, with no glass, but: I am not sure. _I made no special trip to see the doors.. I ‘before I did.’ I do not know whether the doors had been moved: All I know is that I glanced over there and saw _ them about fwo hours afterwards. .I would not say: it was _ two hours afterwards, but it was after the fire was pretty ‘well under control. : " We kind of pulled the.roof over as shown in Exhibit 13: I think we pulled it to the west. We hooked a ‘truck onto it. I:don’t remember what its position was before we started pulling it. There was.a lot of brick over the side- walk and-meter. At the point w the meter. was the -brick was three or four feet high. . The brick was there before we pulled the roof over. It was brick from. the - west wall. ‘It also covered the sidewalk clear out to the : —_ a dy _ ‘es , F ¢ H: lt Ze. E gE le Bo "4 : PEs i Fit _ Mr. McGee was the man who ordered the test made and . Called me over to witness it. It Wa8 about 2:36 in the after- noon of Monday the 31st. I left there about 6:00 that | morning and went back about the middle of the morning. -. The telephone company and the gas company were working | at the scene when I came back. When I speak of the curb _ I mean the outer edge of the sidewalk. ae «Phe Martin building was constructed of brick and the floors were of wood. I would say, that the west room, re- 3 . ferred ta as.the office was twenty feet ‘wide and fifty feet _ north and south. i. Soe e oS Re-Direct Examination. : The first building on the west, the office building, was — about twenty feet wide, and the second floor of that building had collapsed sometime before-the picture was | taken... The second floor of the second building from. the _ corner where the sewing machines were kept was still in- > _ tact, ales ee a ee See pl Re-Cross Examination. = —. .. By intact, I mean they were still-in a horizontal posi- - tion. The roof was off of the office part of the building, _ but was ngt-6ff of the second building from the corner. ’ That was wherg the fires were burning near thé roof. Exhibit 13 shows the west wall of the room immediately -Toof-is indented down. .The front wall was not down on east of the office building to: be partially down. I think the — | eh, : t r. ee > . - , ~: : 18 . > Sie ene room. Part ‘of the west wall of the seednd ~ ne i Wey 7 } tee tented Gu tess ahh Gnd ic Go oe - ing of the first story of the‘second building from the corner: we ee eee J. J. Baan, ‘on, behalt of plaintitis, testified: | Direct Examination. a : : live at Tipton, Missouri,. and am District Sanaa for . the United Telephone Company. My office at one time was located on the second floor of what is known as the : Martin building. Pretrial Exhibit 1% is a picture of the Martin building. We occupied thé second floor on the '_ Moreau Street side of the building. The meter shown in — the. picture. is a meter that. was in existence there at: least | some of the time that our office was located in the build- ing. When the telephone office was there there was an outside stairway that led down to the street. _- I have been with the telephone company in Tipton. for of a total of forty-two years. We moved out of the second - floor quarters to a building which was attached to the south of the building which we had previously occupied. __ When we moved to the first floor quarters we had natural — gas service in the:second floor quarters from which we - moved. I think‘the meter shown in the picture is the one from which we received service. I think ds Gia Siolon io 0 and.I belid that j we received it in our second floor quarters as one \of the | » first users. I would say that we had had gas ever since |. 1933. - I don’t remember whether the line that was put » in from the main to give us service clear up to the meter was all put in at the same time or at different ti * e _ do not know who put the line in, but the telephone \ pany did net put it in. It was .someone other than the 4 -19.. _ FI think at one ‘time pre gas company wuld lay your line to your residence for one dollar. At the time the . ‘service was put into the telephone company and the meter. | put right next to the outsidé of the building there was about | '.two and one-half feet of dirt at. the edge of the building, which was later covered bysa sidewalk. The outside stair- way was taken down sometimé after we. moved from that space. It was after 1938. : ‘Cie: Examination. jel ‘would, not know whether the service that I knew . originally came in off the alley and ran up the property line ‘and into the building for the telephone company. I do back of the building came ‘into.the building. from the alley. ~ { could not. definitely: say when that meter was. put in, without some records. I do not remember whether, when the meter was put in, they ran any kind of ling across the street.. I-do not know who put. that line ‘in: I do not know whether a plumber put the line in or. just who did __ don’t know who paid for it or who put it in. : Re-Direct E-candiiation. = I I do know that my. company did not put it in. and I am just — my, best recollection. % Ke = r : Re-Crovs Examination. The telephone company did. not send ‘sillinbolty down to excavate and put in the Pipe in there. That is ; all Tam we. os | Mann S. Bartirs, on behalf of: plaintifts, ‘testified: - ., + Direct Examination. ; | . I live in ‘Tipton, Missouri. t was night mexshal in ‘Tip. " ton in January of 1955. On the night of. January 31, 1955,‘ .. I heard a noise, a kind of a thud; I don’t know just how you would explain it. I was about one block from the “aN 2 : er Z es, « | ° \ t > + \ not remember whether the gas line back in the alley in-. . it .I cannot say that the gas company put it in.” I just ii we De Martin building when I hedfd the first noise. I was walk- ' ing away from the building at the time facing east.. I turned around to see what I could see, and I did not see any- thing: I walked gver to the depot where there was a truck that had just: pulled in and Pcs: cae had hit a -Yailroad car, but it had-not. I went maybe one hundred -feet to the depot: I then went on up the street and I was | . at the Ford Garage when I heard the second noise. She. exploded and fire followed that: That noise was consider- _ ably louder than the first. I was about one-third of.a block _. from the Martin building at that time and across the street. - I saw the fire, then I turned in the alarm. eer | ite I believe the service pipe was taken out the second or third day after the fire. I saw the men digging there, but I did not know what they were digging for. I did not ask | them any ‘questions. I did not complain or protest, because I did not know that I had any reasons to do so. e- 28 _ I bought the first. building on the east in 1939. T next bought the. middle building and then the west building. With all three buildings I had ninéty-four foot ‘of frontage . _ and two hundred feet deep. The two story building was _ sixty feet deep. When I bought the buildings they all ‘had. solid walls between them. I did not know how old _ they were. The photograph marked Exhibit.15 has a date _ 1890 at the peak.- They were probably about fifty years old when I bought them. They had brick walls. ° I took * out the wall between the east building and the middle ' building, and put an eighteen inch steel beam north and '. South and a steel beam east and west with steel columns to support it. The west building was twenty-two feet wide.’ When_I took the wall out it left the upstairs just - ofe room as far as the east building and the middle build-— '_ing were concerned.: I had columns: supporting the beams: * on the first-floor and: the second floor was supporting the © roof. The second floof was made of ‘wood Jaid on 12 inch. joists. They Were anchored. in ‘the brick . I later _ cut archways eight feet wide in: the east wall of the middle. building after I purchased the middle building. I had three. . archways on each floor.. The wall itself was fifty-five, feet long. When I put the stucco on the west side of the build- ing, there was some humidity on the inside of the first floor, but none upstairs. The only way you could put the .Jéhns-Manville plasterboard was to tack strips and then put the plasterboard on the strips, and that is what I did. "We drive nails into the brick .on the west wall. . When: -I finished that I put stucco on the brick facing of the. west wall in 1942. - During all this time either I, or now one of my tenants, . _ Was. eperating 165 to 170 machines in’ the building, but none of them-were ever in the west building.. That was an apartment. They were all in the space east of the west building. They weigh from 160 to 170 pounds, including - the stand on the machine: In addition we had nine pressing’ _ machines that weighed about 400 pounds. These were on _. the first floor. We also had a machine that supplies air to . dry the trousers on the first floor which weighs 350 or 400 pounds. I own about 180 machines all together. At the’ time of the ire I; was renting all. the space east of the d wath biden fie sonpeaten aie 1 eel eee also own some machines of their own, in addition to the . one that I rented them. Some machines were'on the first floor and some on the second floor on the factory part of —— the building at the. time of’ the fire. _About-December, 1954, some machines were moved from downsiairs ta the | upstairs part of the factory. .I think after the move there. (9M =were probably about 100 machines. upstairs. . Probably 105 people were working upstairs. The tenants. had the ~ right ‘to: do’ whatever they. wanted to about moving. ma- chines, but I talked with them about the proposed move. . We put in no. additional structural support when the ma- chines were moved upstairs. ra) 4 . After the fire we noticed that’ the second floor was bulged, or. pulled «s 30 5 ; . & Pa . : ei es cme in steel windows, kitchen cabinets-and new bathroom fix-- “tures. . In the west building there was a hallway leading —~from the door to the stairs to the apartment.’ There was with a doorway leading from the hall into my office. were two rooms’ in my office space, 12 by 22 and 8 b Then there was a solid partition on the north of | ' fices separating them from the employees’ entrance. was an outside door right next to the meter on the west of-the building leading into the employees’ entrarice. There. was a hallway running clear across the west building and into the factory. The-hall: was seven or eight feet wide. The north wall at the hall didnot go clear to the —: . North: of that wall was. the general office. - _ After the apartment: was ‘remodeled the gas service pipes ~—ran. from where“ it been from the ceiling of the first floor, ran under the floor and back to the corner where the bathroom was. There it served an automatic hot water, heater. The hot water heater was near the brick wall: I also ran a line. to the kitchen from the riser right back * along the west wall. That is on the inside of the west wall. . _ The kitchen was in the southwest corner of the apartment. — «The gas reached just inside the partition,’ within about twelve feet of the south ‘corner of the second floor. This -- connected to_a stove which had a pilot light. I also ran a line to the fiorth to the second room north of the kitchen. - _ to an automatic heater with a pilot light. : Starting from the front I had one bedroom which covered | the entire width of the building: .It was about twelve feet deep., The next room back of that. was a living. room - which went the entire width of the building with the ex- ception of closets. Back, or south, of ‘that was the dining - | room and back of that was-+the kitchen and that was in this ‘corner. Next to that in the other corner was the bath- . room. That was the way the second floor was at the time of the fire. The door to the apartment entrance was a new Stained door. The door-leading from the apartment entrance hallway. to my office was also a solid door as was _ the door.to the employees’ entrance. The doors upstairs were also sdlid doors. ‘The front doors were double doors ‘and opened in the center. They . were also solid doors... *. » 31 op. :- — er he eee 8, . tw See, red as ak dees te cay ellen as tes Uh tte oh hallway just inside. the employee's entrance leading into my office. Up to the front there was a swinging door. Hit, - There was a register in the floor at the northeast corner -_ of the building and one in the northwest corner of the ‘ _ building and on the east wall about halfway west wall was not more than twelve inches of where. the pipe. comes through the wall. It was six feet. north of” the hallway.. '* Back of the employees’ haierity dine tte adties etl thon 3 ‘my two offices.and then. an office back of that. There was _ a partition running north and south. A solid-partition.. It . ee eee ne ne eee re ee ee Ot SIMO he” : The sidewalix on the west side of the building running aithh anid candle sns'6 Wile Over caves tent otha At the | _ edge of the sidewalk there was a curbing, or step-down _ from the. sidewalk to the street, or the divider between : the ‘street | @. e604 boiler in the back of the building of the factory part. The .. . Steam pipes ran on the ceiling. A two-inch main line fed . - thé pressing: machines and then a two-inch line branched ae _ Off into a one-inch or three-fourths-inch line to the heater: I believe there were seven space heaters all told hanging fromthe ceiling. Also-there was a sprinkler system all through the manufacturing plant. | . The door. that went up to:the apartment ‘was the deor _ that I saw across the street at Gabbert’s Garage. I did not see the employees’. aac aae a =e T saw. rept front entrance door at the ys . ° There was about sixteen to eighteen ees of space be-. . tween the ground and the floor joists of the office building, and I put the registers in for: ventilation purposes. I never sthelled any gas in the area of the office building, and my tenants never complained that.they had smelled any gas. Carver.was thé maintenance man for my tenants in the ° ad building. but when he was there on, Sundays. he ® ‘ ‘L taapla Wile Mate wen ted canees Messen Swrect trees the main near the west edge. of the street'to the building then known, as the Hilgert building. I recall repairing the street afterwards.” As far as I can remember this took . place in 1932 or 1933, something like that. I think the whole line from the main up to the meter was laid at the - Bame time. et a — | = ctice was on the second floor of the Hilgert building at y that time. ine tn haitens 40 tain ae susieds, ‘The Ges Com: pany laid the line. -I do not know who laid the line under the walk. If I ever said I did not know when the ee ee ee remember it. Ome \ dake ide teens ¥ oun toes Odea os ons ike that came. across Moreau. I do-:not know who laid the. line under the sidewalk: It was not part of my duties as street commissioner to: maintain the sidewalk. Ce j Orro Canvas, on. behalf of plaintiffs, testified: Direct Examination. oe live in Syracuse, five miles west of Tipton, and work for the Tipton Manufacturing Company. I have worked . for them since 1940 or 1941. In: — 1955, I was a mechanic for that company. Se} ‘ “| arrived at the scene about 2:30 on ‘Jentan 31, 1955, after the explosion ‘and fire. The fire was -burning and- the building was partially destroyed. After I arrived I -. went into the building on the east side downstairs and on the east side upstairs and turned off all the power: Then F went in the middle room of the downstairs front and © shut off the sprinkler system. .The middle room is right _ behind the outside water hydrant shown in Exhibit 15. It is the east side of the first floor of the second buildirig _ from, Moreau Avenue where the valve for the sprinkler _ system is located. There were pipes going into the other. . part of the building that. were broken and. the sprinkler system was doihg no good. It had drained all the water off on the fire fighting equipment and they did not have 5 ‘any. water: : -When I went in the building the ceiling of the first floor on ' of the second building from Moreau Street was still stand-_ 34 : . \ . ing up. Later that ceiling on the second building came down partially ‘and bynted mime after thet. : _/ Gross Examination. | ren : . The building was closed down previous to the fire on _ Friday at 4:30 and all the employees left. I was next in the building on Saturday. sometime: I-myself, most ‘gen- . erally work part of the day on Saturday... I don’t remem- - ber whether I saw anyone else in there that day or. not, ‘The next time I was in the building was Sunday. about "noon. It was my. job to go in there to see if everything was all-right. .I was there about twenty or thirty. minutes 1 - ° an Sunday. _— et ee ee ’. the fire. % They moved. the biggest per cent. of the sabato: in December, 1954. They were sewing machines. They moved from 100 to 140 machines. We carried the machines ' up the stairs. Did not cut hole i in the floor. I worked un- .; der the ‘direction of Mr. Kolker, It took two days to imove the machines.-‘.I had four boys: carry up each machine. Supports had been put under the arene two or three | years before that. : On Sunday I walked through the building from the upstairs to the downstairs to the boiler room. I do not know whether I smelled the odor of natural gas or not on that day. The sprinkler and steam pipes were broken after the 2 fire. The pipes running through the east wall of the _ Office were broken. None of the pipes going to the press- ing: machines-were broken. Sprinkler pipes ‘in the office - downstairs were broken. I never. was in the apartment. 3 | tide * see any ee pipes beck, after the Tike and 1 “not look for any... - The biggest machines weighed ‘about 400. pounds and. _the smallest ones 100 pounds, with an average of from 100 - “to 150 pounds. More smaller ones than large ones. About. - 120 people worked on. the second floor. : : e had a ‘good supply ‘of natural gas in the building as_ far\as I knew. Never any shortage, always good pressure: _ When I first — — the boiler, : we operated it ‘ Pas 35 ‘with coal. About three: years ago we started using gas in the boiler, about 1952. : The gas for the boiler came -in from the alley on the\south. The amount of heat main- \ Bayard R. Brick, on behalf of plaintiffs, testified: eect _ Direct Examination. 8 - T live at St. Loyis, Missouri, I am a consulting chemicaf _, engineer and I.own the Bayard R. Brick | any where. I maintain a chemical laboratory, drafting room and ex- _ shop..I. haye a Bachelor’s Degree in chemical | ¢ eering' and a Master of Science’ degree, \and I did nsiderable graduate work in: chemistry . and, mathe-~ mati¢s and I was on the engineering faculty of Washington University. I have been production manager and. pur- chasing agent for a paint company, chemical engineer. for . the United States: Cartridge Company, which was the . largest facility in the worl@ for making small arms am- © munition. I handled.among other things the powder manu-\ facturing ballistics, explosive manufacturing and handling. “. I was on the Hazard ,Control Board which controlled all ~~ a hazardous materials including explosives, solvents, gases _ and anything that was toxic or hazardous.-I was also on . the Safety Appeal Board. After. the war, I have been act-- . ing as a consulting engineer, specializing largely*in fires -, and explosions; = are Pores _.. 1 was employed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys to go to — - Tipton shortly ‘after January. 31, 1955, to investigate: an. explosion and fire. I arrived in. Tipton ‘the evening of | February 3rd, it was snowing and slushy. [ observed:the _ damage that night and then made further investigation on-February 4th and 5th, = i ati a st : . ‘The corner building was sixty feet north:and south and twenty feet east and west and it had been largely demol- 2 a z w rm 0 i, L § A : as li eB e z at, THe fist it .- At the Chevrolet: filling station ‘and garage across the street to the west there was a door which was disjointed, but not shattered. There was also an intact door there. ° Across the street to the north was another filling station | and beside it was.a large wood door that appeared to bea _ front door. It was disrupted but not disjointed. Roe s There had been. a trench dug through the pile of brick - _ and debris over the sidewalk at a point about. thirty feet south of the north wall of the building. It had been filled up again and we had the trench opened. Straight out in the street under the pavement was found an elbow and the gas cock. and then the pipe. The trench was dug to . the buildihg to the actual masonry wall of the building. — ‘ There was no gas pipe in it. yy FOCe ee . ° We dug the treftch down more than three feet and ex- _ amined the basement wall. The wall of the building itself , was all crumbled into_the street. ‘We found thirteen inch: masonry and rather large stones that were mortared into - \, place. The mortaf,was in bad shape, soft and chalky. . The nry. wall was quite porous. A three-fourths. inch hole - found through it, also a two-inch galvanized pipe was . to pierce that foundation and extended out into the and sidewalk. Piercing the first floor right opposite nT \ : the test wid fouieid s; ventilating reglater 18 by. 23 inches _The corner building was sixty feet north and south, two. stories, and Abutted on a one-story building 6° the south. - _Inan explosion “fall-out” is that material that: is thrown — been taken from the trench. It is Exhibit 25. and is one _ and one-fourth-inch pipe. I examined the pipe and found - _ a-hole in the elbow and. found that the edge of the. hole was quite sharp, and comes to a. feather edge. -The long _ portion of the pipe is quite badly torroded. The short _ portion of the pipe has a ground level ark. about two- thirds of the way up. The portion that had been under the: a ground is corroded and a good part of the pipe has cor-— i ‘roded away. ‘It had been a galvanized pipe. The long _ portion‘ of the pipe was the: horizontal section which led - out. to the curb cock. There is a mark, or circle, coy : ..pipe where it went through the concrete. The top p __- galvanized pipe, coated with zinc: Under the°galvat ine it.is iron pipe.. It is not ible to tell whether the elbow ~ Or the long part of the pipe had: been galvanized. There _ iS no zine coating left on it now.. The long portion of the pipe is eighty-one and one-half inches long and the short por- Sat -: tion is forty-two inches. The shut-off cock was about nine "and one-half feet from the masonry wall. That is the shut-_ : - off cock that was still in the ground, not the shut-off cock. 3 that was just below the meter. When’ I was working’ at the Small arms plant, I had -. considerable experience with corrosion. of metal equip- ment, with anti-corrosion materials, wi is a ree. _ torreded both by soil corrosion and by the. fact tha Sion and chemicals. Also, I have investigat ‘Ripes after chawcuacae piss : 37 | On the evening of February Sth I went to Fayette at the Gas Company office and examined the, pipe qwhich ‘had. _. tarried chemicals. fis aay presto tee the war limes Se Sener em curraen af Icipe pipes: * - and with the protection of buried ‘pipes from soil corro-| : n ted + “Gabbert’s~filling “station: and : .. identified as doors which/had been on the west side of this vv _ In my opinion the hole in the pipe was caused by Soil ' corrosion. Examination of the pipe shows that the metal’ has slowly disappeared until it completely disappeared over the hole and pitches up at the feathered edge. The rest of the pipe shows tuberculation of corrosion products, . | deep pitting. All this is characteristic of soil corro- . There ate characteristic signs of soil corrosion over ‘, all portions of the pipe that was below the ground. °Based - upon the fact that pipe-iri question was in the ground . _at least as early as 1933 and had been in the gtound since that time, that'the elbow with the hole in it was approxi- mately twenty inches belaw thé surface of the earth, that the. ground where the pip& emerged from the earth di- rectly above the hole, the regs ee 3 not covered by any- thing forea space of two feet the west wall of the .. building, that no later than 1939\the previously existing ' walk was extended so that it was hen’ a solid concrete " walk extending up to and flush with the building, and tak- _ ing into consideration the’ facts: discovered. by my inspec- tion of the pipe and my experience with butied gas pipes _ and my training,.in my opinion this hole was in-existence . for at, least ten years prior to the time .it was _up. ° Based on the facts that on January 31, 1955, at about 255. ' Or 2:30 jp the morning, there was a loud noise heard by a - “person who was approximately a block east. of the building "that I examined, and that sometime around three minutes * later there was another loud rise heard by the same per- - son, who was at that time ak it a hundred. feet northwest - from the building.that I exa:: xed, and that he immedi- . ately looked toward the Marti.. building and found that _ there were flames visible in the north and northwest . .. corner_of that_building; that this: building had -the dimen-» sions that I determined by measurement after the fire, and was locked up at the time these noises were heard: that within an ‘hour after the noise was Heard there were found - ’ across .the street north and in the driveway of.a Skelly station a door which-was identified:as the door which had been in-the front of the Martin building, and that there were _ two doors found westward in_the driveway. of, or near to, nd Oates, which likewise were _» Martin’ building; that the temperatures were cold, some- . thing kelow freezing at that time; that the building had a - crawl space of sixteen or eigh n inches under the first floor and that there was a r twenty-two by eighteen inches between that first floor and the crawl space and ad- jacent to the wall opposite the place where the meter was located outside; that the floor of the-building -was bulged _ 6r was in the‘ condition in which I found it, rolled back; . that. the south wall was pushed southward and had fallen i on the one-stogy building to the rear; that within an hour or two after the noise was heard and the fire was observed, the plate glass in Gabbert’s Garage westward across the - street was observed to be broken out aud to be lying in- | side the garage; that there ‘were two electric motors in the first floor of the building which were automatically controlled by thermostats, and were connected with heaters _in‘the ceiling of that first floor room, and that those ther- mostats were set on weekends in the wintertime to main- ‘tain temperatures of 75-80 degrees;.that the doors observed _ : across ‘the street were intact but one of them was dis- jointed; that two posts of the Skelly filling station across - _ the street north were observed within an hour’or two | this noise and-fire to have cracks in them that had not ex- isted the day before; that the roof which I saw a few days after the fire was as intact immediately after the fire as ifwas when I saw it; that at the time of the noise there was .a gas ‘Meter just. outside the. West wall of the building as. shown in Exhibit 15, and that\the. pipe, which has: been designated Exhibit 25, led from the gas meter: down into . the ground the distance I have indicated on the pipe by . the rust and corrosion, and that -it extended from an “L” at that point-some two or three feet below the groind > horizontally. out toward the street, and that. the pipe was -in the condition in which I observed it there at Fayette; that the pipe was in-dirt at the point where the “L” lay ‘that has‘the hole in-it, and the foundatiorl masonry was ‘porous; that a pressure of from three to five pounds was: maintained in thé pipe. at the time of the noises and the fire; and based: upon my experience and training it is my opinion that there was an —— of — gas fol- - lowed by.a fire. , - Natural gas will move through soil. It will tend to move. -upward,. being lighter than airs if the density of the soil will _ permit. If the top of the soil is sealed, or. the escape : of the gas through the top is hindered, then it would tend > to travel ldterally; and we have found it traveling consider- - able distances. , If the surface of the ground is frozen, the gas will usually ‘travel sideways. In my opinion ‘the hole in the pipe was not caused by trauma. If caused by trauma, the edges of the hole would be the full thickness of the pipe. The metal would be bent back, and you.could bend it out again in its original shape and the edges would meet. That is not possible in thig case because the wrens is completely — - Cross Giinttintion. My only ‘dagtet is in chemical engineering. Different ~» metals will corrode at a different rate in the same soils, _ and the same metal will corrode at different rates in differ-’ ent soils, but the same metal in the same kind of soil will _ corrode roughly at the same rate. .On this particular pipe, - there is a different degree of corrosion in the sense that - at one point it is corroded through and at other points it ’ ‘is not corroded through. I did not check the soil outside this building except to look at it. Where.a pipe has been buried in the soil for sometime the best indication of the corrosiveness of the soil is the experience of the Pipe that has been-in fhat particular soil. Soil corrosion is a com- plex. factor it is difficult to tell what experience will be obtained, from examination of one particular soil. In this particular case, in my pinion, it was irrelevant to de- termine right at that time the acidity of the soil, the aeration - of it, the resistivity, the moisture and all factors having to do with corrosion. The corrosive condition of the pipe was a bette indication of the corrosiveness of that particular. soil than. any.chemical investigation of the soil I could have made. I did not take a sample of the soil. .All the _rest of this pipe is.in fair condition in the sense that there are no holes in it and it would carry gas. If gas is gsvap- ing into the adjacent soil from a hole of any size you will find chemical evidence of said gas in the soil. I investi- gated that as well as I could. .I believe the soil was loam. ' I have no records on the nature of the soil. I took none of the soil back to the laboratory. (The Court refuses to 41 let the witness explain his answer.)' I made some tests right at the place where the pipe had been. | As compared with sandy soil, loam is not a porous type 7 of soil. It.is a sort of a clay soil. Such:soil will stick to ‘something that it is around.. With ‘qualifications, it will _— happen around a pipe. The corrosive scale will many times — remain on the pipe. It is possible that the shaking of the pipe from the collapse- of some object on the pipe could . cause scale to shake off. The pipe itself is an indication’ df .the corrosive. condition of the soil. pee Scot _ There is always a flash with an explosion. “All of the ~ gas may not be burned by the flash if there is gas that is above the explosive Jimit.. It will burn if oxygen is supplied. In the process of burning or exploding, gas will char things, and when it burns back to the point where the - gas enters, it will burn wooden objects around that point.. I found no charring of any of the floor on the first floor. of the building or around where the meter had been. - All I found was a little scorching of the wood. An explosion will follow the line of least resistance.. It would go out through a window or door. Whether ‘it. would also go out ° the walls would depend on the: force of the- explosion. Whether it would take a partition out in another direction from that of the door would depend on the extent: of* the explosive mixture. It would be a terrific explosion, one that can be heard by everyoné in a town of 1,500 at'2:00 in the morning. It would be a rumbling and loud sound. Ss, - I don’t méan to say that in my opinion the hole existed as it is now for ten years. But it is my opinion that there was a hole there for ten years, with the gas pressure in their system there would be a leak there for ten years if there was a hole for ten years, in my opinion. . : - oIf there is a leak in the ground it will progressively dry up the ground around the leak: It does not dry it out precisely, but what happens is the stench material, the mercaptan, is absorbed in the ground; it changes some- what the appearance of the soil and has a tremendous odor when itis dry. The odor will stay in soil for some time. I'do not think that the absorption of the mercaptan makes it any easier for the gas to go through the soil, or less easy, a. If enough sities is absorbed it sian” have the effect of preventing the soil from freezing. - | Even though the hole wasn’t this big. for ten years, it had to be this big for at least some time relatively soon before I saw it. Sixteen thousand four hundred ‘cubic feet of gas per hour would travel though such a hole if it were in the open without any dirt around it. You can’t tell how long the hole had been this size, . because it got progres- sively larger. If the hole had been there ten'years, then it - would be reasorfable to say that it was about half that big _ after five years. A one-half inch hole would permit 4,100 | - cubic feet of giis to escape per hour if the pipe were open and there waggno- soil around it. A building sixty by twenty has roughly: fifteen or sixteen thousand cubic feet. . Even under ground it will flow at a substantial rate with -four pounds of pressure. I think it would be reasonable to ° _ ‘say that the hole in substantially the size that it is:now had been there at least one or two to six months: '- Under the circumstances that existed in. this building, this. gas would be getting in there’ every week end when the building was closed and probably at.times.if*reached - ‘dangerous proportions, but didn’t happen to ignite before. The earth having removed’ the mercaptan, it would be ‘ -odorless, or at the most have a stale odor. It is always | characteristic of a hazardous condition that at one time or: another, maybe after a considerable period of time, it gets~ _ ignited and blows up. I used“an explosive meter around. where the pipe had been to determine whether there was ~ a residue of gas in the soil. Where the pipe had been the . ground had already been disturbed so there was no actual . ’ chance of getting a reading. I didn’t expect a reading and I didn’t get one. I examined the soil and smelled of it, } but I couldn’t find the dirt that had been in the hele ate besides it’ was saturated with water and you can’t make such tests anyway in that case.- Even the ground inside the foundation was exposed and was saturated with water and slush and ice. The center of the building was gutted by fire. The scorching: on the flooring was: not caused by _ burning embers falling on. it. - Parts of the joists under- neath the flooring were examined. In a gas explosion the: ‘43 fire will burn. back to the point where the gas is ‘entering . ' if there is enough air to allow such. Whether a carbon : deposit is left around the openings depends upon the sufficiency of the oxygen. I don’t believe thére would be ‘any carbon deposit around the openings, perhaps in the _ immediate vicinity. I didn’t find any carbon deposits of this type near the hole and I didn’t expect it. There was . no carbon deposit in the earth and you wouldn’t expect - any there. ; Outside of the hole, the pipe was pitted in general, but not excessively, according to ‘my deposition. Gas will tend to diffuse equally ina space. In this court- — -Toom it would take about a week for it to diffuse equally. That is assuming that: the room is closed off and there is no motion, no people in it. a. : Re-Direct Examination. The reasons on which I base my opinion that this was a gas explosion were: the floor was disrupted in the crawl — _ Space which is characteristic .of a. gas explosion. Other ‘ «things were eliminated. No drums of solvents were found, the type of manufacturing was investigated and there was no possibility of dust, no possibility of gasoline vapor com- ing from the filling station to the building, and the rear wall was found on top of 'the roof of the one-story building to the south and it was not fire damaged.’- The fire had not reached the back of the building. The window casings _ were intact. The Windows had béen blown out, the doors were found across the street, one at the filling station and | — two at the other station, one of them was intact. Because of the slow diffusibility of gas when gas enters an aréa there are always pockets of gas. The conibustibility of gas and air is within a quite narrow range. If you have less-than five percent gas by volume, there is no burning or exploding. If there is more than fourteen per cent gas in the air there is too much gas and not enough oxygen, ‘and it-again won’t explode. So only from a volume of five™ to fourteen per cenf.is gas explosive. The gas. forms _ pockets,‘ some of which ‘have. too little gas: and some of which have too much gas. The point of ignition has to — be reached by a combustible mixture within that very _ harrow range, then the pocket, will explode, that stirs up the rest of it, and when the rest of it reaches the proper . mixture, it explodes. In a gas explosion there&S invar- . _ iably a succession of explosions, ‘usually at least two, the first at-the point of ignition. The second explosion is generally louder because it usually ‘involves a aimed vol- _ ume of combustible gas mixture. Re-Cross ‘camination. If the person was looking at the area where there was — an explosion you could see the flash. If there was no fire, . . or no flash, there was no explosion.. If he heard the ex- plosion and then looked it. would be too late because the flash would be gone. Methane gas diffuses rapidly, but it diffuses to a uniform mixture slowly. The maximum, disruption of the floor and-therefore the maximum ex- . plosive force under the-crawl]‘space was in ‘the north third _ of the floor, from the meter towards the front of the build- ing. .The floor in the center of the building was eaten up by fire and. I couldn’t determine anything’.from that. _ Sources for ignition were the unit heaters and the thermo- — stats which were‘on the-twelve foot ceiling above the floor . and not below-the floor. If the motor was ‘the source of ignition, there would have tobe a combustible mixture at that point. .;I don’t know of anything under the. floor“that - . would ignite it. If it ignited from the motors it would have © ignited in the space between the floor and the ceiling. ‘The explosive force goes- away. from the point of the ex- | ‘plosion in all directions. From an explosion of the’ gas around the heater the force would ._go out, down and up. | That explosion itself would net.cause an upward™force * under the floor, and therefore, there was another explo- _ sion, or part of the same explosion, undernéath the floor. °. - It could be part of the same flash. All the mixture which was combustible, and you can’t determine how, much was combustible, would-flash at the same time. If it flashed _ through the registers.as it did sometime or another the natural disruption. would be upward no matter what had . occurred above. It may have taken three’ minutes- after the — . explosion of the heater twelve feet above the floor until . the explosion under. the floor. It depends upon the con- - ditions of concentratiori: -That can never be reconstructed - - exactly. In a natural series of. explosions the period of ‘time between ‘atin coul be up to three minutes. . . Mr. C. H. Ramibo, Assistant Superintendent of the Gas ~ _ Service Company. He suggested that I dig up the pipe, look ‘at it and preserve it,-when I called him about the matter. pees ett Se v The meter: that was. beside the building and at the top. ~ of the riser shown in Exhibit 25 belonged to the Gas Service Company. The Gas Service Company: had exclusive con- trol over the meter and did their own testing and check- _ ing of the meter, and they would not permit anyone else. - to test or check the meter. We try to test our meters every | seven years to determine whether the meter is fast or slow. ~l¢ 53 . The Commission requires us to test the méters every seven years. “ We don’t make any regular test of the metersexcept every seven years. There are two purposes in testing a _ meter, one to avoid any gas leaking into the air so as to — , _@reate danger, and another to avoid losing gas, losing’ _ Of my own personal: knowledge I have no fidea when ‘was installed. I do not know when any of the lines shown. Moreau up the very: wall of the building were installed. __ We tested the service. lines going into Smith’s Shoe Shop. ~. - and VeatcheConstructibn Company by taking a pump and _gauge and pumping the line up with fifteen pounds of air. The’ lines tested were from the meter to our curb line. — We turned off: the sto at the edge of the street and © . _ pumped air into. the lines\at the meter connection. = ' “Within ‘the next couple- of weeks we tested the four- — “inch main on! the ‘west side of the street and found two small leaks which we repaired. One of them was’ about. _ At the scene there was a jet flame burning in the rub- ble. "It. was coming from the customer’s service line where '. _ the meter had been. broken on one side. We did not také “any. soil samples or make any chemical analysis or make \\ any tests. After the fire, it was a sleety, bad day, not so - it\turned into snow. | Se : ‘When we dug up Exhibit 25 it was generally corroded. Fsaw'the.corrosion hole. As District Superintendent since "1932 I have laid a lot of gas pipes and-taken some of them ~ Up. I would say this was a corrosion hole. Corrosion is:- - _ & Slow process. _ . along Moreau Street and adjacent to the factory building in the last few years before the fire, and had laid 625 feet of new four-inch\main extending about 515 feet. from the “T” connecting: the Moréau, Street main with the alley Main eastward along the alley. “We replaced some four- the two-inch line across Moreau Street shown on Exhibit 17. in Exhibit 17, running from the main on the west side.of -. . _ fifty feet.from the alley. This main had been laid in 1931... . told, butt it was raining and freezing. I don’t recall whether Fa. We hed: hed srothils: with certoted. aul leaking pipe ep ie Meh tae great \ , . he a ie \ - \ \ \ e — \ ~ inch’ rhains along: the. west side of ‘Moreau north of the. ie, 7 { alley, I' don’t: recall how many feet. -We also replaced thirty-four feet/of the two-inch pipe that ran across Moreau ‘Street and.to within two feet of the west curb next to the factory ‘building.’ Exhibit‘26 shows that the 625 feet of : , four-inch main was laid on July 18, 1951. My best recol- * . lection is that we laid the thirty-four feet across Moreau . *” * iin October of 1950... -.5-. 2° J. > ane enn “We had some’ leaks in the four-inch main, but the line _ "was from six to nine feet deep... We had been pestered _ Ca repeatedly ‘with having to go to Tipton’ and repair leaks ~ in’that four-inch main. It was cheaper to put in new, pipe. - . It wasn’t the number of leaks, it was the time we spent ,:| in locating them. “Because. of leaks it was more expensive e to keep repairing’ them-than to retire the old pipe. It was rroded and had.some leaks in it.. The pipe was eaten a had some holes in it. » That-was not true for the en- "tite length-of pipe. 9: f -With respect to. the two-inch line, the worst_part was in the middle of the street. I recall though, there was‘other . '-“eorrosion“the entireslength ot the part, that was replaced. ~~ #"Tigeneral it was the same condition’ as the pipe we took | _ , .up after the fire, not as bad, but smafl holes: The same ' “general corrosion action had occurred. We had sorne leaks. .in the ‘alley. That is where the pipe was buried so deep ‘it wasn’t reclaimed. _- coy I don’t recall that- we made any other tests in the area - - when we) found. the corroded and. leaking pipe that ‘we - '. pther j F-don’t know whether those !eaks indicated the likelihood. ) " is ge in the area is bad, that leaks. Exhibit 25 dad mt indicate to me the likelihood of > MA A: No we don’t test it. Suk because we find one _ leak in.a particular spot, we each run all over town. : testing for leaks. . Q. No, that isn’t the question. The question | is where you find’ a pipe that has been. in there sirice 1931, or shortly thereafter, at least’ been in there a - long time, has become so generally corroded that you can’t repair it and instead replace it, don’t you ‘con: ' sider that a warning to check for other like pipe in the: neighborhood to see if there are any other leaks? Mr. Jackson; If the Court please, object to that because that is misquoting the testimony; it is argu- mentative, improper cross _ examination. | ' The Court: Sustained. (Offer later. was made to show that the answer would ~ have been in the affirmative:). “Tt is my testimony that. when we find for’ one reason ~ or another that thirty-four "feet of service line is so gen- | _ erally corroded that we have to replace it, we do not make. bar hole tests.or any other tests on either side of that line | _ or on our other lines to see if there are other leaks. After we dug up Exhibit 25 we made some tests in Mo: | ‘reau Street for other leaks. We made the tests to be sure ~ that there weren’t any other leaks. It. wasn’t a: question _ of whether thére was likely/to be or not. We made an inspection for-leaks in ‘February, 1955, in the vicinity of the fire after the fire because there had been a fire and ex- - plosion. It is normal procedure. We did get a little be- © yond that area, but generally it was confined to that area. . It was confined to that area because of the likelihood of another leak there. ~ Q." (By Mr. James) This hole that you 1 saw when. you dug up the pipe in question was the biggest hole © you ever saw in gas pipe, wasn’t it? _. ' Mr. Miller; : hing tn thin cae ne . or disprove anything in /this The Court: Sustained. Mr. James: I would like to make an offer. ¥ 4 “The Court: I will give ‘you an sipartanity to eave your record on that. (Offer was later made’ to show answer would have been © in the affirmative.) ) | Q. (By Mr. James) Now, Mr. bik; np oes pipe has had to be: replaced in Tipton except in that one area right there adjacent to the factory building since the system went in in 1931, to your a isn’t that correct?" \ Mr. Miller: Wait a minute. ‘We object ws that as - not tending to prove or disprove any issue in this case. ., The Court: Sustained. | Mr. James: Could I rake: an. offer on that. later, too? > The: Court: Yes. . : ( Offer was later made to rine that answer would: have been in the affirmative.) : ; As far as I know we never at. any time made a test of the approximately seven feet of pipe running from the company meter. out.to the curb. The fact that the pipe was under concrete was not the only reason. we did not test it. I said in my deposition that the reason for not test- _ ing it was that it was under concrete from ‘the curb to | the building.. The two-inch pipe which ran across Moreau .. Street was black steel pipe. It hasn’t been. determined * whether Exhibit 25 was black or galvanized pipe. It is approximately the same weight pipe. | Cross Examination. L-also said ‘in my deposition that the main reason that . we didn’t test the service line under the sidewalk was that it belonged to. the consumer, The two-inch line across the Street was our property. We don’t test any customer’s . dine beyond the curbcock and the customer’s meter. The Gas Company installed and maintained and is re- | sponsible for the mains and the main extensions over to — the curb line from the street. (Objection that it was a - conclusion and wasn’t ceaines | to this —— east — ) ce We had no-réegrds ss sieatiin when the service line from ~ the curbcock to the, building was installed. I also said in my deposition that tests were made along Moreau Street “because of the likelihood of the existence of another leak ‘because of the fire and explosion, and that the reason ‘we were checking was because there had been an explosion | and fire at that intersection. What I was doing there was © plosion. That is normal safety precaution. (Objection as a conclusion overruled.) In October, 1950, we replaced - the thirty-four feet of pipe because of the leaks in it. If it had been corroded, but without leaks we would not . have replaced it. We have a lot of pipe that is corroded, ‘but if it is not leaking we don’t dig it up. The moreHan 500 feet of four-inch pipe which we replaced in the alley isn’t shown on Exhibit 7, but it runs east of Moreau. One of the principal reasons we abandoned that line was be- cause it was so deep that we had to spend so: much time digging. By laying it shallower, we could maintain | it better. ! I have been with the defendant and its ianiitbicinis com- _ panies since 1932, but I have been concerned with Tipton only since July, 1940. Since then we have never installed any service lines for a customer from -the curb line to the -customer’s property at our expense. It is instaJled at the \ property owner’s expense, usually by a plumber. I have. _ tion 6f so-called free-service line; and I think that they are still in the possession of the company: After we in- Stall ‘free-service lines we. never maintain them after that. I do not know of any service lines beyond the curbcock in that area that has ever had to be replaced or, maintained. I have never had that experience. Although I was not » Manager ‘in 1931, I did go te Tipton.and do some work — for the company that first started the business-there, I solicited sore of the free installation arrangements with — new customers in Tipton. I did not have oceasion to solicit a free customer service with anyone connected wit the building in question. The pipe which we took out f low~ ing the fire has been available to representatives in this action at any time. We had no reason to take it out except to Preserve ivi in the event it might be _— - a lawsuit. to see if any other. pipes had been disrupted by the ex- - | seen a printed form of agreement regarding the installa- — | 58 ‘ Re-Direct Examination. . | ‘The digging up of the pipe vith this hole in it of that size had something to do with our testing other pipes in the neighborhood. When a gas company first moves into a town they want to promote as many customers as they can. .I don’t recall that a-gas company ever built the - service line clear to the building. The customer would have to build it from that foot up to the meter. I don’t know ° anything about Mr. Hardy’s installation, and I don’t know. anything about the installation of this. pipe for the tele- . phone office. In those instances the customers would pay one dollar for the pipe from the curb to the one foot from the building, or if in an alley, from the property line to ° within one foot of the ea : , Naomi Woop, on behalf of plaintiffs, testified: Direct Examination. _. I have lived in Tipton since 1948. I have lived in the apartment in the .Martin Building from July,. 1952, until the time of the fire. My parents live about 12 miles from Tipton and I was at their home at the time of the. fire and explosion. I believe I was last. in. the apartment on the 24th 6f January. Gas appliances in my. apartment were . ' “a cook stove, a gas heat stove, and an automatic gas water _ heater. The lines that served these appliances came from the west side of the building. There were pilot lights on all these appliances, and I had been using them since the . time I moved into the apartment. When I left the apart-' _ ment before the fire I shut off the gas, but the pilot lights > were left burning. This is what I had done every time — _. that I had left the apartment for a week end since 1952, - and I had had no difficulty of any kind. 2 Dae rer ene | Exhibit 27 is 4 picture of building and the apart- ment. The/picture was takén after I installed the air con- ditioner. The picture was taken in 1954. . picture shows the true condition of the meter r and the’ sidewalk ° - | : ee ieee ie on the west side of the building: Exhibit 28 is an enlarge- ment of Exhibit 27.. (Both are admitted in evidence.) I- , had a television set in the apartment. It was in the second room from the north and it was installed in January, 1955, a matter of days before the fire. I- rented the apartment from Mr.. Martin, and I also did some work for. him, and I had been working in Jefferson City too. I was notin. ' the apartment at any time after I left there on January 24th. I had the key to the apartment. ge aS $) . Certain parts of plaintiffs’ request for admissions, to- _ gether with defendant’s answers théreto were read in evi- dence, in which defendant admitted that the building in ; question was damaged by fire on January 31, 1955, but stated. it did not have sufficient information to admit or deny that there was an explosion, or, if there was an ex- plosion, that it was a gas explosion or a natural gas ex- plosion, or that it escaped from the hole in Exhibit'25..—- Plaintiffs then read certain interrogatories to defendant, that it removed the pipe in question following the casualty; _ that the pipe was thirty-seven and ‘one-half feet south of Moniteau, and extended seven feet three inches east to a . . point about eight inches west of Martin’s building, and the _Temoved pipe was ten feet four inches long; that there Was a hole in the elbow at the time of removal, which hole had been underground and was oval-shaped and. about one and three-fourths inch by one inch in area; that de- _ fendant was unable to state what caused the hole; that the pipe was removed on February 2, 1955, at about 10:30 - —&, m.; that C. L. McGee had custody of the pipe after its _Temoval; that on October 27, 1950, thirty-four two- — _. the-alley; and on July 11, 1951, one hundred ten feet of ' fowr-inch main, beginning at the alley south of Moreau Street ‘and extending north, wre replaced; that the de- fendant never, prior to January 31, 1955, inspected or and the answers thereto, in which. the defendant. stated « os _ tested for holes or leaks in that portion of the pipe which - ' | ‘was removed following the casualty; that. the defendant - did not at any time before the casualty notify Mr. Martin, or any of the occupants of the Martin Building, that the defendant had replaced the pipes‘and maihs referred to. C. H. Rampo, Assistant Superintendent of the defend- -_ ant’s whole system, by deposition, testified: ~ Our policy is that, when: we find leaks in our mains in a given area, we usually make bar hole checks in that > area. We would not necessarily make checks of. the service lines cleat up to the ‘meter froin the curbcock. We would not necessarily test all the way up to the "+ meter if it is under pavement. A bar hole test is prob- ably the test we would make. When we made a test . _ or. when. we make a test under those circumstantes of .the . service line up to the meter, I don’t think it would make any difference to us who had purchased the pipe when at was originally put in.. When we would test.a service “Tine that goes to the customer’s meter to be sure that it was not also affected, I think we-would get his _per-' mission to do so... SS If we tested the service line either by the use of bars _, or by the use of a pressure pump: I don’t see’ why’ it _ would be necessary to get the permission 6f the customer. & I told Mr: McGee after the fire, “if. there is any ‘that has—from which there has been any evidence ‘of seat age, Keep it.” Exhibit 29, being a plat of the city of Tipton and an 3 ing Lots 16, 17 and 18 on which the buildings in ques- tion were located, is admitted in evidence and shown to the jury. The plat shows the streets of Moniteau. and ; - Moreau are both sixty feet wide.. roe Hs Plaintiff reads from Exhibit 1, being Rules and Regu: lations governing the distribution of gas in Tipton, Mis- | souri,-issued: by defendant’s predecessor and approved by . __the Missouri Public Service Commission, being effective Qn November 1, 1931, and being in force at the time of the in- » _stallation of. the pipes in question. The following is read _to the jury from Section 2, Subsection 2.of said Rules, and Regulations: = “The service line from, propetty line to. meter .lo- te cation shall be part of the property and shall. be in- stalled and. mairitained at the property owner’s ex- _ pense, but its use as a gas service line will be subject _ to the inspection and the approval of the _company. 3 : Exhibit 30, bein, being Ordinance 221 of the city of Tipton . dated: May 3, 1948, is received in evidence, and Section l is read to the jury as follows: . “Be it ordained: by the governing body of the City of Tipton, Misso . That there is hereby: granted to:'The Gas Service Company, a corporation operating a gas distribution system in the City of Tipton, Missouri, herein called the Grantee, its successors, and assigns, the rights, privilege and franchise, for a period of twenty years a the effective date hereof, to construct, main- in the present and future. streets, ; i uF z = ie ge iy necessary vg desirable all for the purpose of ‘meat ing natural gas for all purposes to the inhabitants of said City and consumers in the vicinity thereof.” Exhibit 31,- Ordinance 108, dated July 21; 1930 (later i ‘repealed by Ordinance 221 referred to above) which gave | _ the original: franchise to a predecessor company the | defendant, was admitted and Section 4 thereof w read : to the jury, as follows: Sa race “Grantee shall ‘furnish free’ of charge and install for his customers reliable meters or other instru- merits for the measurement of gas sold 'and~shall keep the same in repair without cost to the cus- . > tomer; all meters or other devices used by the gran-. tee shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspec. / tion by the City and the City shall have the right “ to test said. meters and devices at reasonable -times. Grantee shall also furnish and install at his own ex- ' _ pense proper and suitable and adequate service for _ each customer from mains to the -curb line, if such mains ate located in the street, and from mains to , _ ‘the property line, if same ‘be located. in alleys, and / all such mains and lateral@shall be adequate in size ~ and construction. “shaper th ; v Plaintiff then read Section.1 of Exhibit 31, 9 inllowwk: “That in ‘consideration of ‘the benefits to be de- * rived from the installation and operation of a gas . plant and distributing em in the City of Tip- ‘ton in the State-of Missous, there 4 is hereby granted ‘to Thos. F. Bowdern, his. successors and assigns, the - /. right, permission. and authority to construct and \.: Operate a gas plant and.to lay, install, maintain,and _* Operate a gas transmission and distribution system within the limits of said City as the same now exists | ‘or may be hereafter extended, for a period of twenty - ; eee ant oe ee er = Cis Ore : _ mance and the ratification thereof by the: voters | the City, as required by Statute, and for this there is hereby further granted to said grantee right, permission and authority during said mR if 1 = lay, install, maintain and operate, in, upon, over; across and along all the streets, avenues, alleys, bridges and public places of said City, all mains, . ‘ services, pipes, conduits. and appliances necessary or “convenient for . transmitting, distributing and sup- - plying gas for heat, power and other purposes. for ‘which gas may be used during the term hereof, a for the purpose .of transmitting such gas into, — __ through or beyond the immediate limits of said city. . It was agreed that the riser on- the service line ~~ “. tached to the meter was buried in the gtound twenty- nine inches below the surface of the sidewaik-and-twenty a dnches below the surface of the ground. It was. also agreed that the pipe extended from that point, which was eight inches from the foundation wall, straight west under the sidewalk and then connected with a curbcock belonging to the Gas Service Company, said curbcock | being right at the curb on the west side of the sidewalk. — That the curb line was 7.6 feet from the building, and — ‘from the curbcock the ‘line extended another..two feet «west and then joined an “L”. connection and. extended _ from that. point south a distance of approximately 11.7 _ /feet, where the dne and: one-fourth-inch pipe joined with /a“T? to the’ two-inch *line extending under. Moreau c Street thirty-four feet to: the four-inch main line on the . west side of Moreau Street, and. that the defendant com- pany owned and had exclusive ‘control -of the curbcock. Then the following p were had in court chambers, out of the presen 1 of the jury: co Mr. -It appears from previous: statements — - made to the Court in chambers that the plaintiffs in _ each ‘case have two different theories in the case, and = I would like to move now on behalf of the defendant 7 “ a 4 ESE rn 5% ry a to the: meter and therefore had: the duty under the law to maintain = Lest in a namanehly, _ safe. condition. : Re Under tlie law of the:Sthte of BiissSul4, i¢ that sabe ice pipe was owned by the plaintiff Martin, then the | defendant would ‘have no duty to maintain the pipe. in a reasonably safe condition, that that duty would be. upon the defendant—the plaintiff, Martin, the ownership is in the plaintiff, Mr. Martin, the ‘de- _ fendant company would only. be liable where. it directly engaged. in some test related. to the “ tenance of the condition of the service pipe in q and‘ had not properly executed that test; or, two, ' where it had notice of a defect in the service pipe.and had not taken the necessary steps to prevent the danger from remaining operative from ‘such defect. — | I think the plaintiff ought to elect on which Sheory - they are going. to go. . '' Mr. James: It is the plaintiffs position, if the Court | please, that the theories are not-gonflicting, that if Martin, as stated .in paragraph 3 of the complaint-- if defendant. owned or had under its, control the gas ~ line leading to the building and failed to maintain it _ in a safe condition under the circumstances, the de- ‘ . fendant was negligent, arid the other theory, which we do not feel conflicts in ‘any: way, is that the de- fendant had knowledge or notice of a defective gas line, a leaking and defective gas line, or knowledge of facts and cigcumstances’ that would put a reason- _._ ably prudent person, ‘situated as was the defendant company, on inquiry; that a reasonable inquiry would - have. revealed the defective leaking pipe, . and that. with that notice the. defendant failed either to repair or - - to warn the consumer, or to shut off the gas until the pipe was. repaired, it was thereby negligent and that that negligenté was the cause of the damage, and that that theory is supported by the evidence in the case ‘and is not inconsistent with the theory of ownership oh IE SS NSE Sr = ee any ee In other words, the duty in the one theory ‘arises out of the ownership or —— of the a: ‘The duty As in the second eas arises out. of ~— notice or hint _ edge of facts putting them on inquiry, and I think we | are entitled to either both of ee sebenlenions | =p: _arately or together as not being in co ict. The Court: The Court is of the opini ~ necessary for the Court to determine as. question of law the ownership of - x be pipe in ques ion, of the Segpice ‘pipe in question. * Xx ae (Colloquy off the Tecord.) Ga ‘The Court: It is the Court’s ruling ‘that, in light ot the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs in this case, there is no. evidence. to. the effect that the defendant : was the owner of the service pipe extending from — the stopcick to: the place where the meter was set. Mr. Miller: The closest_ Point ‘to the meter’ was eight inches— ' The Court: To where the meter was ; set adjacent to | the Martin property; that under the rules and regu-. lations read into evidence by plaintiff there. were in. force and effect at. the time the pipe in question. was laid, it is revealed that the ownership of -the. service _ cs - pipe in question was in the owner of the premises in question -béing serviced by the gas of the predecessor ‘company of the defendant in this case, with the right of inspection. én the part of the predecessor company alk adjacent to the property of the. plaintiff, . : ion that, pipe in. the instant defendant, the: presump : | Se defendant; that said pipe extended under the side- | . : is that the pipe was. upon property of which, under | the law ofthe State of Missouri the abutting property owner hds the fee title subject to public franchises or. ‘Absent direct p ‘of ownership of the pip by - - thn tadand eles the Court declares the law to . be that under the evidence as esta ship of the service pipe. in ‘question. occurrence referred to in the’e ep eee | es the owner- was i / easements thereover . for the maintenance of streetg and other facilities, as shown by the evidence. . Sede e ‘ : . 2 ¢ . ad . 5 ‘ ‘ , ; a, m ‘« : , -- ¥ a _ » tod . . : * . = er a- ‘ . ; "8 e . sl ‘2 - tuceien “Alfred "Martin, and. you may aaa ac! ? 7 Me ‘cordingly with that being the ruling of the Court. ' - Now, ‘what else do. you have? _Mr.. _James:’ Im the event it is necessary in (om . ‘to. preserve my ° rd Proper: | we of course object : \v ‘> ‘and except. : ~* The Court: It is, not dienes, You hiee: an ex- . on ception to all rulings made: by the Court. It wi _» understood that you do specifically except to this ruling. _ "Mr. Millers. The Court is not. requining an election “at this time? | I \The Court: It is not. necessary for an aia ‘in the light of the ruling that the Court has made. ie Mr. Miller: Very well. od ho Mr. Jami s: If I understand the Court’s 5 riling the ; “eliminated, the. first théofy. | A * The Court: The rship of the pipe, yes, placing SS the —" in the — Martin. Biel | DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE. ‘ _Vawstox H. Ryan, on. behalf of defendant, testified: * Direct Examination. — - director of the Division of Natural ‘Splenes: and Ma tics and professor of chemistry at Rockhurst Col- » lege in ‘Kansas City, Missouri. I have an‘A. B. degree, a . __ Master’s degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy in chemistry. .. from Kansas: City Univesity. I have been at Rockhurst ~~ _ for thirty years as professor of chemistry. One of the _ main phases of chemistry is the study of gases.. Gas will © . occupy all parts of any shened container. . te, It is an impossibility for gas to et ina container. - If on gas were under an eighteen inch floor and there was a \ — near where the gas entered the. -underfloor, ‘space, \ it ‘would diffuse in all directions, but it would ditfuse , — those —. If a dex has been buried. ner A * . a ‘oa ~ ei GY ‘ . . a ’ - . vt “- a \ } : R me - q fichen in the ground and. it ys a one inch. hole in it for - about six months and the gas in it ‘is four pounds pressure, — I would say that about the first fifty eubic feet of the - . gas that.came through the soil would have the mercaptan, ‘which gives it its odor, absorbed by the soil, then the — _ soil would be saturated with the mercaptan and after that the. gas would come out’ just like it nae been _put in the pipe. Gas coming in contact with the soil has. a tendency ia dehydrate the soil and make it more porous, thus allowing _ . better entrance-of the gas. The ground becomes sort’ of 8 : pulverized, and: does not pack. ~The gas would pass more ” rapidlY through: that-soil then. Under those circumstances, - ld go through the soil,’ through the founda- - ‘the gas _ tion and SHould eventually form an equilibrium mixture _ of air and gas underneath the floor and in the building. . oe . would be an explosion at a later time, although it-would =~ be possible. It would depend on the amount of gas. coming in and the amount: of gas going out, but no question about _it, the gas would be more diluted if the wall was down. ‘I would say that the explosion occurred: before the west _ } , wall collapsed. In examining the picture it indicates to me ‘that the west wall just collapsed and was not destroyed by .an explosion: I am positive. that the west- wall was. present when the explosion took place. I think the ex- plosion loosened’the west wall. to the extent that it col- lapsed. .I don’t think it was due to the: original explosive force, possibly secondary, but not primary.. In my opinion the explosion occurred while ‘the west. wall was ‘intact, . the explosive force was driven south going out tge south , wall, and if the west wall collapsed it. was secondary. to the blowing out of the south wall.. In my. opinion the west _ wall did not collapse first, thereby. breaking gas lines and | resulting - in a later concentration of gas and explosion. . @. ! a : , Pe You cannot shania gas in the open pres and get ; a proper mixture for.an explosion. It has to be confined in some manner :so it.becomes just diluted with air. The ° container does not have to be air tight, and no ‘buildings _ are. completely air tight, and certainly some building that ‘ oo has been in existence for some decades. If. we opened container of gas in one corner of this room under the con- ditions that we have here, ‘you could smell it at the other end probably in about 15 minutes. You would never have | ) the gas_uniform in the entire room except in a room which -— ~ was air tight and had no o openings because with. air_coming___-_ "in it is going to be enriched with air, and the gas at the source is going to be richer even than it is here. It would take some: time fog, gas to come’.in a building and diffuse itself sufficiently 86 that it would reach an explosive mix- . ‘ture, say near the ceiling of the building where there are’ _ electric motors. Under -the facts. assumed, if there was a ’ break k in the pipe caused by a wall or-something collapsing _— '..on the meter and thereby causing a break in the pipe or. _ . breaking scales off of the hole.or in any event opening the pipe to the extent of one inch in diameter, I could not ex- . : press.an opinion as to how long it would take to get an ex- | Pt plodable mixture in the room, becausé there are too many variables. I don’t think I could geé an explodable mixture moving into that building from that hole in three minutes. I think it would be’ impossible, with those variables. If you have gas coming into a room on the first floor and | there are registers between the first and second floor, or “an opening to permit gas to pass through, and if the gas om the first floor gets above the explodable. limit, and you. are releasing as much gas as is passing through the open- ing to the second floor, the concentration in the first and. .. second-floor rooms would never become the same,’ because the gas ig the-first floor is always being enriched. There would always be a greater concentration in the room be-— low than in the second fléor room. All the gas"that goes to the room above would take some air with it, and there-. fore, the concentration in the room below would get.richer ~ ~- and richer assuming the gas is coming in at a constant — ‘rate. The gas in the room. below: could be above the ex-° = range while at nonedy same time in the second story 3 72. - in the room above exploded; the gas in ‘the . below rooiti ‘it could be below the explosive range. i fe gas -woilld not explode, but it would burn. The ges in the _ _ room below. could not later reach the explodable range, — because it would burn almost instantaneously. ladecact the . , oer above because of the opening... | : The gas passing through: soil would dehydrate the soil. : It will act as an avenue in the sense that the soil is more _ porous and the gas can-more readily escape. I would not - ‘say that it is like a pipe, because this can work in alf . aaa ae directions. I have seen instances where ‘gases pass. through soil and it makes the soil dusty, pulverized. I do. not have an opinion as to whether such soil would sealup . a hole in a pipe. containing gas at four pounds pressure. As long as-there is just one container, it is, ,dmposgiblé to - have two explosions. As long as there is an entrance from . __one space to another I would. like to refer. to that as just __- one container, and there still could not be two ‘explosions. - _ Although the force of an: explosion: moves equally in all directions, if a weaker part of the structure. goes out, that will make the pressure less on the remaining parts © . | of the structure, and it is possible to have an explosion _ that will blow out some of the doors and not blow out the © walls at all; | . One of my considérations, my second consideration, in. arriving at the opinion that there was an explosion on the second floor at the rear was the fact that a door from the firgt floor. at the rear end of ‘the building leading up to. the apartment was found across the ‘street. If a door on the north part of the ‘building on the first floor. was ‘ bert’s. garage. The doors lay right by the pumps. I noticed that Gabberts’ plate glass window was out. I believe the at i. f ; -glass was inside the show room. The part of the Gabbert - a building: where the windows.qwere’ out was directly across © | the. street oon the front: part -of the west side of the Martin: door: to the devibeeky to the Gabbert garage would be The windows that were iin. the slanting. - roughly opposite t6'‘the southwest side of the Martin build- .‘ ing. I don’t remember whether they were out or not.’ I- “would not say that they. were. Exhibit 12 shows a scodped- : out place in the wall that divided the westernmost building . and the second building from the west. I don’t remember -whether that condition aS shown in the picture existed when I arrived, or whether it collapsed further or burned out further after I got there. I remember there was some out, but whether more fell out later ‘I honestly don’t re- .- | - member. I don’t remember if the second-floor. of the sec- _ ond building from the corner was cupped when I got there or‘not, or if it was cupped later. To the best of my'memory ~— the’ floor ‘was about where it is supposed to be. I don’t — mecesece ceo; 5 Re Ses eae ee R ‘ . ae a4 know. ek had awekened | me + tint: night, but T woke up. ; S knowing that — had happened. - Lonnie BELL, on. behalf of defendant, testified: > Direct’ Examination,: 3 | I .have lived i in Tiptons Missouri, since 1931. I pears to ‘Tipton the first of November i in. 1939; to put ina restaurant in the Hilgert building. : The building that. -T rented. for the restaurant was the one that. was’ ‘involved in_this fire. ‘Hilgert agreed to put — : gas in. for meé and fix the-building up with a new floor. There was no gas in it when I went to rent it: It was about a month and one-half. from-the time I talked to hirn until I got to move ‘in. I had gas to cook with when I moved in._ The meter for that gas service was on the west side: of. - the building \right by the side of the building. It is shown 2 2, in Exhibit 27, Before I rented the building and after I had* a first seen Mr. Hilgert there was rio meter on the side.: After I moved in I saw the meter. You couild tell -it had: been freshly ‘put inf (objection sustained to. question: “Did you see where -there had been digging done there, as {o underneath the ground?”). I ran the™ ‘restaurant. until. - _ sometime iw 1941 when I sold it to a man by the name of a Smith. I. used gas duiiing 1 that time, and the gas was in _ my name. = —_— a ‘Ciee Examination. Tam scsi. sure that.I started the eeitaulint in N ovem= | ber: instead of September. | ‘The restaurant was on the ‘ground floor. There was. already gas in-the building when. _» I moved in. I don’t know whether gas was.used upstairs by the telephone company when I moved in the dowfi- © ~ + stairs: part or not; I couldn’t swear to that. The telephone | company did not receive their gas through my meter.. I~ _ don’t know when the service line from the main up to the = ' meter was-put in, When I moved in the meter was there. I don’t know nothing about. the service pipe. (Exhibit .32, aes: a Statement dhe the bee au is grarked for. Panhiestion. ) a ey . PR EDA Ik Rem eS PO, I said in this statement I had no. idea when the service pipe to the meter was. put in,.ijt was in when I first came to Tipton. That is true. I @6n’t know when the service - : pipe was put in. I don’t know whether the service pipe — | _was-in or not, but the meter =) in when I-first came ‘to Tipton. The meter was in when I moved into the place, : but it was not in when I went to rent. the building.. Se fF Z oe 4 2d Hanae "Kouzes, by. deposition on behalf of “defendant, - testified: a I live in : University City, Missouri, on ‘week-ends} and I . live in Tipton during the week. I am. superintendent of *: - ‘the. firm. I have been superintendent at Tipton since “* 1947. Otto. Carver, the maintenance man, took care ‘of — most . everything in the building with: regard to mainte-- “nance. “I was in St. Louis at the time of the fire, and had left Tipton after work the previous Friday. I got back in . Tipton Monday morning about 9:00 or 9:30. The build- - ing was closed on Saturday and Sunday, except that on S Saturday machinists might come in or the man that cleans’) - up the place, but on Sunday it would have been. closed un-_ . less Carver came in to see that everything wa was in. working order. I ‘don’ t remember whether I had any work for. the “machinists to do on thé Saturday before the fire or not. - T- never pcg ried foul- odor when I would go in the front | door where the offices were, not any more than where © a building is closed and you walk in there;-that is about all.*.I don’t know’ of any mention being ‘made of such an - odor. Once-in awhile you can have an odor of cloth if the | - building has been closed for a day or two. We kept our — bolts of cloth downstairs toward the front of the building, ~ toward the office part of the building. We kept a little bit of cleaning fluid for spots, but it is in — that won’t burn. . We kept it upstairs. . On days that. the factory. is not in tineratites sith as. Saturdays and Sundays, 4. would say that the temperature | in there would be 50 to 55 degrees: ee or. oem would = 70-80 — 3 ee Fo the presence of. the: jury: )* . Ss 2 oS - . s | We were kind of crowded downstairs and we had some empty space upstairs, and that is why we made the change in December. We put in a rtew floor upstairs. We had no - machines upstairs prior to December, 1954. We moved up ‘ '. 125 to 140 machines. We strengthened the stairs. I never = . smelled any odor of natural gas in the building. You could go a block or two: from there in the alleys and you could smell gas. You don’t smell gas in those alleys now. They | . kept taking out pipesand replacing them. I had smelled ‘it --- from. the time I was down there up until about two years “could take the machines up by the use of ropes. (Defend¢ ant offers in evidence-defehdant Exhibits 30 and 31 in their entirety, ‘being the Tipton Ordinances. saeomnae one. in evidence Exhibit 33.) | : 7 (Whereupon the défendant rested and, shimccaiaies, thé following proceedings were /had in court chambers, out of “J _ The Court : Go ahead, Mr. J ames. -.. Mp. James: -I “asked this questidn, and I am ene | ing from a transcript Miss Finlty prepared: “Q. No, 3 that isn’t the question. The question is where you. - find a pipe that "has been in*therée since 1931, or : shortly thereafter, at: least been in there ‘a long time, ° has become so generally corroded that you. can’t repair - it and instead replace it, don’t’ you consider ‘that / warning to check for other like pipe in the neighbor- hdd to see if there are any other leaks?” | The Court sustained objection made on the ground é — that it was misquoting the testimony, argumehtative, ~~ and. improper: ¢foss-examination, and I offer to show . that if the witness is permitted to answer that ques- tion he would say that it would be a warning. va ib ago ‘(deposition taken April 17, 1956). When we. made the | | new floor upstairs, we left an opening big enough that we © Rt: a, ‘The Court:, «ll right, let the offer be made, eee the same objection made to it? © 2 Mr. Jackson: Yes. .— | The Court: As at the time it was originally of- fered. Sustained. - -; ae James: q asked this question Yes. . ‘ | ~ Mr. iller: I think that ‘objection had some: other _ grounds, too. I don’t recall just what it was. (Co me loquy off the: record.) - | ie Mr. James: I was offering that on the thedey that | the size of the hole had some relation to the time it — had been there... BS ee » Mr. Miller: That wonlde’t prove anything. ie Mr. James: And these others he found in this cor- . -roded pipe he replaced,. indicating that it had been: ‘a three or four year eee In any event, I want: to make that offer. — 7 8 ; oe .. The Court: All right, let the offer ,be made. Same eee objection, same ee Aes Mr. James: I asked this qinitiein of ‘Mr. McGee: “Q. Now, Mr. McGee, no other pipe has had to be. replaced in-Tipton except in that one area right there ‘eS adjacent to the factory building since the system went in in 1931, to your knqwledge, isn’t that correct?” * . Le Mr. Miller objected on the ground it didn’t tend.-to — _ prove or. disprove any ‘issue/}in the case. The Court sustained it. I offer to show if the witnéss were per- mitted to answer he would have answered in the af- - firmative, that there was— ‘ The Couft:’ You are making the same objection? _ Mr. Miller:. Yes. . The Court: That was made at the time it was orig- _. inally..offered. Let it be sustained as to your offer of proof. 7 3 | ote oe 89 | : cluding the statements and admissions made by plaintiffs - a | the — eccaaacacrg service - Now, do you have anything else? > ‘Mr.: James: No, that is all © . Mite me ’ Mr. Miller: “ Do you have any further evidence? . :; Mr. James: No. (Whereupon the following proceedings + were had i in open ~ court, in the presence of the jury:) . The Court: Do you have ——- further to submit, - Mr. James? Mr.. James: Plaintiffs rest. -(The’ defendant filed the following sneibloin: } _ DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR’DIRECTED VERDICT | 3 oe REQUESTED AT THE CLOSE OF ALL Cosa. now the defendant in. s the: dovireventiting case at ic ‘the close of all the evidence and moves the Court to-direct - | ‘a verdict for the defendant for reasons as follows: | (1) cause the amended ‘complaint fails to state a claim = showing plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for, or facts | sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant: 4 2). | Bataiuie upon the pleadings and the evidence in- attorneys on pre-trial hearings, defendant is , entitled to a directed verdict. | | | | 7 (3) Because. thiare is no evidence: that natural gas ' escaped from the alleged defective service pipe causing the alleged _—,§ and fire or that natural gas caused the : ‘same. | | , "(4) Disease onde the law of “Missouri defendant owned ‘ “no duty to inspect the alleged service pipe. ( 5)": Because defendant had no knowledge or notice of | a (6) Siesnene there | is no evidence that Detentions cuniiea ‘ a ee eee ae (7) Because there is no evident that. dadeindantt nig - gently failed to inspect. and test Said service pipe. (8) - Because there is no evidence that. the. debtdent negligently failed to repair or replace the alleged ‘defective service pipe or failed to shut off. the supply of - until ' said alleged condition could be repaired. (Filed ‘in the United States District Court and over- ruled, on September 14, 1955.) : ( Plaintiffs ‘submitted the following requested. instruc- tions: ) — | Fate PLAINTFS! REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS, oP : You are instructed that the defendant, its agents andem- ° — ployees, in handling the sale and distribution of natural — _ gas, owe a duty to exercise a high degree of care which-is — commensurate with the deadly and dangerous character of » its product. That is to’say, they owe a duty to exercise Por ‘the same care’ that an ordinarily prudent person -would - exercise under the same or similar cireumstances _com- mensurate with the 2 dangers to be reasonably — You. are instructed that if youfind and. ‘Ballres that. the - _,damage described in evidence was from ‘an explosion and. — fire caused by the leakage of combustible gas from a de- - . fective service line connection lying between the defend- . - ant’s main jand the defendant’s meter, and that the said * defect was in that area) de icated to the public use as a street, and used as a sidewalk. and if you further find that. _ the’ said service line. belonged to the defendant, and if you further find that defendant negligently permitted its said — & 82 : / ei service line to become and remain i in a corroded and. teak- ing condition, and negligently | failed to inspect said -serv- ice line and maintain said service line in a reasonably safe condition for the distribution of gas, and if you further find that said negligence, if so, directly caused the said explo- — sion and fire; and the damage therefrom, then your vérdict . - will befor the plaintiffs and against the defendant. . ( In the event the Court reflises plaintiffs’ requested In- sousiahh No. 2, plaintiffs — the giving of the follow- ing instruction: ) ae, IP 3. an are instructed that if you find and believe that the | damage described in evidence: was from an explosion and fire caused by the leakage of combustible gas from a de-. ' fective service line connection lying between the defend-. ant’s main and: the defendant’s meter, and that: the said - defect was in that*area dedicated to ‘the -public use as a - street, and used asa sidewalk, and if you further find that said defective service line was under the control of de-— fendant, and that the defendant, by and through its agents | and employees, knew or in the exeréise of: that degree of care which is placed upon the defendant in distributing com- bustible gas, should have known of the said defective pipe in time in the exercise of ordinary care to have prevented - said: explosion by repairing or causing to be repaired said — Di . «gently failed: to do so, then your verdict must be for the . - _ plaintiffs and: against -the defendant. And:in this conneé- . defect, or warning the customer and shutting off the flow of gas until repairs were made, and that defendant negli- tion you are instructed that knowledge does not necessarily mean positive information of an unsafe pipe. brought di- rectly home to the defendant, but includes knowledge of - facts or circumstances that would cause a reasonably pru- dent person,.so situated, to investigate, where a reasonable © 3 investigation would disclose the presence of an unsafe pipe. @ (In the ‘event that. the Court refuses plaintiffs’ requested ' Instructions 2 and 3, plaintiffs ~—— the giving of the : eta: instruction: :. | re a. _.__ ~~" 4, re : - t- “The Court instracts the j jury that if you find and bition that the damage described in the evidence was from an - explosion and fire caused by the leakage of combustible “gas from a defective service line connegtion-lying between the defendant’s main and the defendant’s meter, and if _ . you further find that thie defendant, by and through its x ‘ agents and employees, knew, or in the exercise of that : degree of care which is placed upon the defendant in dis- . tributing combustible gas, should have known. of the said defective sérvice liné in time in the exercise of ordinary care to have prevented said explosion by either repairing __ or causing to: be repaired said defect, or warning the ¢us- 3 - tomer and shutting off. the flow of gas until repairs were — made, and that defendant negligently failed to do'so, then - . your verdict must be for the plaintiffs and against the de- - 3 . fendant. .And in this connection you are instructed that. knowledge does not necessarily mean positive information ..- of an unsafe pipe brought directly home to the defendant, but includes knowledge of facts or circumstances that . _ would: cause a- ‘reasonably prudent person. so situated to - inveStigate,’ where a reasonable investigation ‘would ‘dis-. close the — of an — pipe. : | ae Cdunsel for the respective parties iia their closing — . arguments, at the conclusion of which the Lge — _ the jury as follows:) : ! The Court: Gentlemen of the jury, hie sian ion ae fairly presented before you all the evidence that they have : regarding the issues in this case from their 7 standpoints. : They have done such an n able job that I don’t | think it is going to be necessary for me to make-any com- -aments on the evidence in the case so as to explain to. er the law of. the casé. However, I might have to do. so, to Ss refer to some of the facts in the case, so as to better make . known to you what the law is so that thereby you may make a practical application of that law to all-_the facts in — ‘the case. But understand. this, Yhat if ‘ do sas ee bast some. not express any opinion to you tionally “to FORE a at ee ee ee we ping: your prerogative... . gee : On: the other hand, I state tke Jaw to you and you gust: _ take the law as I state it to you in this charge. You should not take into consideration any other rule of law that you _ might have in mind, if I.don’t state it- inthis charge, be- * cause if you did you would be usurping my function. e and dangerous character of the -product, nat -' So. now we have ..a mutual function to perform, and oh I am going to state as clearly as I can to you the law in _ the casé. If it appears to you complicated, you are at liberty to call upon’.me at. , time. for additional | ex-. planationris of law. ° > You must keep in’ mind one rule of law, that it was - the duty of the defendant’s agents and. employees ‘to ex- | ercise a high degree of care commensurate with the a es, handled and distributed by them. . That is ‘to say - owed a duty in relation -to the handling of that product | to exercise that degree of ae hich an ordinarily careful and prudent person would use 6r exercise under the same or similar circumstances commensurate with the dangers to be reasonably anticipated from the handling and dis- - tribution of natural gas: : gas,. ~"Now the plaintiffs ti this case clajm: that the dstendent has failed to exercise that. degree of care which the law a casts upon it and that the defendant was thereby negli- - gent, and as a result of such negligence the explosion in question occurred and the damage to the Martin building ~ _ and the personal property contained ‘therein: was thereby. The specific claim the plaintiffs make is that at the ‘time of the occurrence mentioned in evidence the Martin building and the personal property therein were destroyed _ as a direct result of a natural gas explosion and fire that a7, ‘ t . pies rs sit Heli quae ili 1 tidk 4 THEE " carelessly a on service line .. or to warn Mr. Martin of the defective character of the . and proximate-result_of the negligence of the | we eas ae any view ere to & * aaa ni your is whether under the facts and ° circum-: } G ms e - . “if? . : = ; ‘ x e ee i : : e . S 7? es * > . 7 ‘stances shown in evidence and as submitted to you in this tg _ Charge the defendant was or was not directly and proxi- _ mately ‘negligent in causing the explosion in question and -the*resulting’ damage occasioned. to the Martin building —. and the personal’ property therein. That is,the only issue. | that you are to decide in arriving at a verdict in this case." . ' You need not consider the quantum of the damage that. the ‘plaintiffs claim. ‘That, will be taken care of by the a Court at a later time. You only determine whether or — | ' not the defendant was negligent or not under the. cir- cumstances shown in the evidence and‘as submitted to you in this charge, whether or not. that negligence was the 3 proximate and direct cause of the éxplosion in question. -- Now, of- course, the defendant has denied that under } applicable law it was negligent in any. manner in causing the explosion ‘in question as claimed _by the plaintiffs, ie _, denies that it had any knowledge of any defective condi-— -. tion of this particular service pipe in question which ‘would | _. reveal to it knowledge that there was imminent danger or ‘peril of a leakage therefrom, and that it had no notice of _‘any natural gas actually leaking from the service line, . and that no natural gas actually leaked from the hole found in the: service line after the explosion in question until after the brick wall of the Martin building collapsed _ and fell on the service pipe and meter attached thereto, . and that the explosion and fire dccurred, if one did occur i in the Martin building, ‘as a direct consequence of some _ ' other cause than the leakage of any. natural gas from the -. service pipe in question. Batore the plaintifts are‘ entitled to recover in this case, ou must find and believe from the evidence that if there 3 was an explosion of natural gas in the Martin building in . ~, question, that gas came from the. leak in the service pipe- ~~ , line exhibited to you in evidence. If the explosion in question or any damage occasioned to the Martin build- iin ray age ecard he Marna 4 - source of-natural gas, if it was a natural gas explosion, - ee cag from any other source than the leaks mentioned in evidence and as exhibited before you in the service pipe o” in question, thén under those facts and circumstances the —- in this case are not er to a ba at your 3 7 | ‘87 haba: and you should return a_ verdict in favek. of the _ defendant in this case on all three of the forms of verdict , that will be submitted to you. ‘Now, in determining the issue of iinet: as “sub- | “mitted to you, you are instructed that under the law. there -was no duty or obligation on the. part of the defendant to — Maintain this particular gas service line that was located _. between the shut-off cock at the curb of Moreau and the meter set next to the Martin building in a safe conditign, : and there was no duty on the part of the defendant under ‘the law to make. any physical inspection of that Jine to determine whether any gas was actually leaking from ‘that service line prior to the time of ‘the. occurrence in _ question. Under the law and the facts -of this case, the defendant's oily duty in respect to that service line arose, if it ever did arise, after. the defendant had some knowledge of ‘the . ‘leakage of gas ‘from that particular ‘sery -line; or notice - of a defect in said line which would i hinently cause gas. . to leak therefrom if -it was not replaced. or repaired, and . thereafter to take such reasonable steps as were necessary | to ._prevent the danger arising from the escape of any 3 natural gas from any defect,in said line thereafter re- Beco maining operative. The steps that the defendant would — be required to take under the law, if it had notice of a leak of gas from said service line or from a defect in said service line which would imminently cause gas to seams therefrom was to either repair or cau [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386418_1553%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.