CHAPTER XXX. GAS-EXPLOSIONS. THE law extends a good degree of protection to gas-light companies in respect to their liability for explosions. Since the use of gas for lighting has become so extensive among the common people, lawsuits for injuries by explosion have frequently arisen, and they are decided by ascertaining who is responsible for the fault or negligence exhibited in the particular case. If the accident result from insufficiency of pipes or fixtures which the company was bound to put in better condition, or from neglect or careless conduct of the persons it sends to make repairs or alterations, the company is responsible. If it result from acts or neglect of the dwellers in the building, the company is free. Gas-companies do not hold their privilege of supplying gas, as incorporated managers of some other dangerous and explosive agencies have been said to hold their franchises, at any special risk of bearing all casualties, or under any special responsibility for explosions. Gas is not dangerous or explosive unless carelessly used after being lighted, or allowed to mix with atmospheric air; hence the legal inquiry is, Whose carelessness brought the casualty about? The company engages to furnish gas, and that all acts and duties devolving on the company or its workmen in supplying or stopping it shall be carefully and skilfully done; that is all. Yet in a number of instances fault has been proved for which the company has been held responsible, and has been required to pay damages. In a case which occurred in Albany, a dwelling-house was blown up by an explosion of gas in the cellar, and the tenant's wife and daughter were thrown through the ceiling of the room in which they were sitting, and then fell into the cellar. The mother does not seem to have received permanent injury, but the little girl's thigh was broken, confining her to bed for three months, and permanently shortening the limb. An action was brought in her behalf against the gas-company for damages. Investigation showed that the father noticed a leak of gas in the cellar, did not know the origin, and sent to the company to ascertain and repair it. A workman was sent who lighted a match in the cellar, already filled with the explosive mixture. There was a dispute whether the leak was in the service-pipe, which the company was bound to keep in repair, or in the pipes or fixtures, for which the tenant was responsible. But the courts said that was of no consequence. The immediate cause of the explosion was the light carried in by the workman when he knew there was a leak; and this was negligent, no matter whose pipe was leaking. And as he was the company's servant, sent by its direction, for the express duty of finding the leak, it was liable for his careless way of doing it. The girl recovered $2000.*—In two English cases, families who did not take the gas themselves were injured by its escape upon the adjoining premises. In one, the gas-company sent workmen to introduce the gas into the next house; they were careless in their work; there was an explosion in that house; it took fire, and the fire spread to the plaintiff's house by its side. In the other, a heavy wagon travelling the street broke the main pipe, and gas percolated into the plaintiff's cellar, and an explosion was the result. In both these cases, the courts held that the companies must pay damages for their negligence-for the carelessness of the workmen who set the houses on fire, and for omitting proper precautions to discover and cure the leak in the street.+-Still *Lannen v. Albany Gas-light Co., 44 N. Y. 459; 46 Barb. 264. Blenkiron v. Great Central Gas-Consumers' Co., 3 Law T., N. S. 317; 2 Fost. & F. 437; Mose v. Hastings, &c., Gas Co., 4 Fost. & F. 324. another story is told of a case where gas escaped from a leak in a defective service-pipe. The tenant of the building happened to have a gas-fitter at work for him in another room of his house, and this man, of his own accord apparently, on hearing about the leak, went with a light into the room where it was, and everything was blown to pieces. The court adjudged that the company was liable, because here a fault was clearly proved against it in the defective service-pipe; and the tenant was not in fault for the light being carried in, for the man who did that was a stranger who went in of his own accord.*—In a Georgia case there was an unoccupied house, and the owner notified the company to turn off the gas; they did so, but in a careless, inefficient manner, and it leaked into the house. One evening some negroes asked leave to hold a supper in the house. The owner told them the gas was turned off, but they said they would carry candles. He gave them leave, and they went with their candles, and there was an explosion. The court said the company was bound to use skill and care corresponding to the nature and delicacy of the business, and if it was careless in the matter of turning off, and the house-owner was not in fault for the light, he could make it pay.t-And there has been a New York city case like these. The gas-pipe leading into the house was broken by fault of the company, and gas leaked into the cellar. The tenant sent for a plumber, who struck a light in the cellar to find the leak. He found it. There was a great explosion. The court held that, as the company was responsible for the defect of the pipes, they must pay damages; for, according to the evidence, on the trial, the tenant was not to blame for the carelessness of the plumber.t Householders as well as gas-fitters are, at the present day, * Burrows v. March Gas and Coke Co., L. R. 7 Exch. 96. Schermerhorn v. Metropolitan Gas-light Co., 5 Daly, 144. expected to know that gas, mixed with air, forms an explosive compound. This is no longer a matter of recondite science, but of ordinary information; and persons who use gas in dwellings and shops are not allowed to say they did not know it. Mr. Lanigan notified the gas-company to discontinue the supply of gas to his store; when, however, the workmen removed the meter, they left the service-pipe leaking into the cellar. Lanigan, although he knew of the leak, sent servants into the cellar with a light to draw some ale. There was an explosion, by which the servants were killed and the store and goods greatly damaged. The judges said that he was not entitled to any damages from the company because he was himself to blame for sending the light; that every grown person of ordinary intelligence is now expected to understand the danger of taking a candle or lighting a match where gas is escaping; and whoever does so must take the risk of any damage done. Lanigan said he had sent into the cellar in the same way several times before without harm done; but the court said that made no difference.* * Lanigan v. New York Gas-light Co., 71 N. Y. 29. CHAPTER XXXI. THE HOUSE OR HOME. HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. Books inform us of ancient laws by which a debtor who could not pay his debts might, upon demand of his creditors, be cut in pieces and divided bodily among them. Rigor like this had become obsolete long before the commencement of American jurisprudence; but the early law for the collection of debts was rigid in exacting all property that could be obtained from a debtor for the satisfaction of his creditors. In modern years, the view has obtained that creditors shall not have everything; some reservation of property is allowed, to provide for the immediate necessities of an insolvent, and to relieve his family from absolute destitution. This privilege is given by laws of the various States allowing a head of a family to designate by public record a house and lot as his "homestead," which shall not thereafter be taken for his general debts, and by laws prescribing certain kinds and amounts of personal property which shall be "exempt from sale on execution." The principle of allowing a debtor to retain some little property is now recognized throughout the country. Probably every State accords some privilege of exemption of personal property-clothing, a little live-stock and necessary tools for the debtor's farm, a limited number of articles of furniture for the house, wages just earned, and the like; but the different statutes upon the subject include an immense number of petty details. An exemption of a homestead is now allowed in nearly all the States.* The laws for this purpose allow a head of a family to * Upon a cursory examination, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, |