WATSON V. KENTUCKY & INDIANA BRIDGE & R.R. CO.
Ct. of App. of Ky.,137 Ky. 619, 126 S.W. 146 (1910).
NATURE OF THE CASE: Watson (P) sought review of a judgment which held for Railroads and
tank car company (Ds) in a negligence suit brought by P to recover damages for personal
injuries he sustained in a gas explosion.
FACTS: A tank car, owned by D and filled with gasoline was being transported through a
populous section of the city of Louisville over the roadbed of the Bridge & Railroad
Company, (D1). It was derailed and its valve broken causing all the gasoline to escape and
flow in large quantities on the street and into the gutters. There was so much gas around
that there were standing in pools in the street and gutters and great quantities of highly
explosive and combustible gas made its way into the neighboring houses. Three hours after
the derailment the gas exploded from a lighted match thrown on the street by one Chas.
Duerr, who claimed to have used it in lighting a cigar. The explosion threw P from his bed
and almost demolished his house. P was taken unconscious from the ruins of his house,
bleeding, with a fractured jaw and one cheek nearly torn from his face. P sued Ds alleging a
number of causes of negligence. Ds denied all the allegations. At trial many issues were
disputed but one thing was clear, those trying to fix the problems created from the gas were
incompetent as incompetent gets. There was no contrariety of proof as to the fact that
Charles Duerr lighted the match that caused the explosion. The issue developed over whether
Duerr had accidentally struck the match or whether he did it maliciously. Ds were permitted
to prove that Duerr, who had been a telegraph operator in the employ of the appellee Bridge
& Railroad Company, was on the morning of the day of the explosion discharged from its
service, and that 20 minutes before the explosion Duerr remarked to his companion, in the
hearing of Giacometti and Darnall, 'Let us go and set the damn thing on fire.' A peremptory
instruction was granted by the trial court upon the theory that though Ds may have been
guilty of negligence in permitting the tank car to be derailed, such negligence was not the
proximate cause of the P's injuries, but that the act of Duerr in lighting and throwing the
match, which the court declared was done purposely and in a spirit of wantonness, malice, or
mischief, was the proximate cause thereof. A directed verdict was entered for D. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment