Chutuk v. Southern California Gas Co.

THE COURT.

After further consideration of this appeal, we are of the opinion that the District Court of Appeal arrived at the correct conclusion in its decision of the case. At the time, the petition for a transfer was before us, we were somewhat impressed by the statement of petitioner that the service pipe and riser were on the land of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur

might not apply. There is some conflict in the evidence as to the correct location of said pipe-line and riser. But conceding that they were located on plaintiffs’ land, still they belonged to and were the property of the gas company, arid the gas company had complete charge and control of them. Not only would the gas company be liable for any damage proximately arising out of the negligent manner in which they were left after they were disconnected with plaintiffs’ building, but the company having the exclusive ownership and- control of the service pipe and riser was in duty bound to explain the cause of any explosion that might be caused from gas escaping from said service pipe.

The opinion of the District Court of Appeal is, therefore, adopted by us as the opinion of this court. It was written by Mr. Justice Houser, concurred in by the other members of said court, and is as follows:

[397]

“The plaintiffs were the owners of a frame building, one side of which was adjacent to the property line of the lot upon which the building was located. Several years preceding the date when the plaintiffs became the owners of said property, at the instance and request of the then owner thereof, the defendant Southern California Gas Company (hereinafter designated the defendant), which was engaged in the business of furnishing gas to the public generally, installed a service gas pipe from its gas main in the public street to the premises of such owner, and thereupon and thereafter by such means furnished gas to said owner for his use. At a later date, which also preceded the acquisition of the property by the plaintiffs, the gas service of the then owner was discontinued and, with the exception of the service pipe which had been installed and was owned by the defendant, all gas pipes were removed from the premises. The service pipe ‘was located one foot east of the property line’, which placed it just outside of the plaintiffs’ building and property and within a few inches thereof. In discontinuing the service of the gas the defendant caused to be capped the riser which extended perpendicularly from the service pipe above the surface of the soil for about four inches. The building was constructed ‘about six inches . . . above the ground surface’. At no time did the plaintiffs have knowledge either of the location or of the existence of either the service pipe or the capped riser. Between the side of the building that was adjacent to the property line and the curb line of the street was a space of ten or twelve feet upon which a night watchman employed by the plaintiffs sometimes parked his automobile. Early in the evening of a certain day, which was several months subsequent to the date on which the plaintiffs became the owners of the premises, a boy with whom the watchman was conversing at the time, threw a burning match upon the ground near the place where the capped riser was located, and thereupon an explosion of accumulated gas occurred underneath the building, which was followed by a fire that resulted in a damage to the building, stipulated by the parties hereto to amount to the sum of $1500. Thereafter, in an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant, the trial court denied to the plaintiffs any right of recovery against the defendant,