*1 whether Charles DeFonde was guilty contributory negligence.

I see no point be gained by length quoting from the transcript of but I help cannot but testimony, feel that justice faltered when the denied the jury pass upon opportunity the factual issue which was raised the witnesses recalled the happening event tragic which resulted this lawsuit. Appellant, Natural

Steele,

Company. *2 C. 1956. Before J., Bell, October Argued Steen, JJ. Chidsey and Abnold, Musmanno appellants. plaintiffs, Schlesinger, Hymen Lamprop- II. with him Milton W. William Eckert, Ingersoll, Rodewald & Ec- los, Smith, Buchanan, appellee. company, for defendant kert, him McConnell, Dickie, Randall J. Mc- with Jr., Camey, de- for additional <£(cid:127) Chilcote, Robinson, Reif appellee. fendant, Soltz, City Solicitor, E.

Thomas Assistant with Barton, him J. Frank for defend- Jr., Solicitor, McKenna, appellee. city, ant No Opinion Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern,

vember 12, 1956: *3 plaintiffs injuries In this action seek redress for by explosion gas sustained them as result the of an of negligence by which, was caused claim, the Company the defendants, Natural and the Gas Pittsburgh. all Plaintiffs lived at 50 Crawford Street in Pitts- burgh. Company The Gas maintained a box for curb adjoining the house at Crawford Street was which located in the sidewalk and close the divsion line gas two houses. between The consumer’s service pipe for the house at No. 48 commenced at the curb ran into cellar vault of box, that house beneath the through along front sidewalk, Availof the vault and gas that wall to the inlet side of the then from meter, along outlet side the meter the front wall through a side the rear Avail, Availof the vault, throughout thence the house. night April

On the one 24, 195.2, Underwood parked his automobile on the front of 48 sideAvalk directly Street Although Crawford over the curb box. supporting there were beams above the vault weight in with to cave of the car caused sidewalk into the that the front end the car crashed the result Either house. cellar of the Crawford Street vault the car itself or a section of the sidewalk struck point gas pipe the front wall broke the at a between gas es- and the inlet side the meter; caped pipe for about 20 from the broken end of the exploded. ignited minutes and then somehow accident was notified of the The Gas min- or 5 about 20 minutes claim, either Gas before ex- utes as claimed dispatched immediately plosion an and it occurred, shortly emergency man He after to the scene. arrived explosion because could not shut off the but in the hole and over curb Underwood’s car was department, city box. As soon as the fire which was only away, was able to remove car a few blocks opera- burning fire in the hole, out —an Com- about Gas tion took minutes, which —the employee pany’s shut off the the curb box. testimony, produced contra- Plaintiffs front the sidewalk in dicted cracked and that Street was of 48 and paving depression three in the concrete there was deep, long, of that same ankle four feet width, pri- years existed for nine this and that condition *4 testimony by There was also to accident. likewise con- Avhichwas 48 Crawford Street, tenant of that after the accident, the Gas tradicted just explosion, he had noticed that the before and “egg-shell pipe He thin.” also was rusted broken bricks had fallen from the of the that some testified ceiling some before the accident. time of brought defendants

Defendants the house at 48 Craw- a former owner of Soltz, Jacob Northington, ford Mitchell of that the tenant Street, property, parking of Clifton whose Underwood, brought pass. automobile had the accident to jury returned a verdict in defendants favor both the and the additional defendants. Plantiffs’ for motions judgment a new trial and for n.o.v. were refused, appeal. they action the court below against City Plaintiffs’ claim is on the based alleged long-existing the side- defective condition of City least con- walk, which, had at contend, appear, structive if not actual notice. It did how- pur- only ever, not safe for was pose support proper namely, for which it existed, designed users A thereof. bear the sidewalk is not weight parked City of a and the was not automobile, obliged anticipate subjected that it be would improper purpose, only City be- ing keep reasonably init safe condition pedestrians: use of Dunkerton v. North Braddock Bor- ough,, Pittsburgh, Schramm v. City Washington, 373; Aloia depression 65 A. 2d 685. If the claimed actually pedestrian and if a existed, slipped City might or fallen into of the it, well hare resulted. But that not the of acci- kind present dent that occurred case and the court might properly given binding have instructions in fa- Pittsburgh, vor for the same also, in favor of the additional reason, defendants Soltz Northington. claim

Plaintiffs’ Natural Gas apparently upon based three grounds: (1) Company’s original that the installation (2) improper; the meter should (3.) pipe discovered that the had been thin; worn *5 enough quickly respond when notified it did that prompt- gas off the and did not shut the accident ly should have done. as it charges, assert

As first the of these to required Utility that a rule of the Public Commission the be installed inside that meters should urban necessary building, them outside, if locate but, protective device. some kind of should be enclosed Assuming, arguendo, of the meter the location compli was not a in the Street no it is obvious that, ance the nevertheless with rule, placed, the the meter were consumer’s matter where pipe underneath the side have had run would and would therefore from the curb to house, walk caving been in of sidewalk. broken protective enclose the meter a device failure to happening to the no causative relation whatever provision Presumably that of the rule is accident. protection merely meter for the a is not a Violation of statute or ordinance weather. proximate ground it and effi unless leg type of an accident which cient cause designed prevent: Shakley islative enactment 322. Nor did the testi Lee, pipe mony or con that either meter establish improperly supported it was in view of nected with anticipated not have been the fact that could fall and an automobile would in to break it.

As contention that cognizance taken con- should have worn pipe, responsible company .the a is not dition of pipes in in which the. the condition customer’s .for building it is under maintained; are .not inspect repair service and. line Connections *6 Light the curb to the v. house: Greed Manufacturers’ Company, and Heat 238 Pa. 86 A. v. Windish 248, 95; Peoples Company, Natural Gas 248 Pa. 93 A. 236, Hanley Peoples Company, v. 1003; Natural Gas 325 Equitable Stephany Pa. 188 A. 6, v. 157; Com Gas pany, 347 Pa. 31 A. 2d 523. It is when 110, true that company knowledge has notice or or of a leak de duty notify fect in a consumer’s line its either to occupant repair owner or the leak defect or to or shut the off at the street in order to avoid like ly danger: Company, Windish v. Natural Gas Equitable 248 Pa. 236, Heller v. Com 1003; pany, 333 Pa. 3 A. 2d 433, 343; Goodman & Theise, Spring-Brook Inc. v. Scranton Water 352 43 A. 2d 111. did 488, Here the Gas pipes install or own the house at 48 Crawford Street and it had no over control it never them; was any notified or that were rusted weak or in dan gerous may or unsafe it and the fact condition, that inspected up regularly impose the meter did not examining inspecting pipes. on it the plaintiffs’ Finally, regard toas third contention in Company’s liability, to the Gas the evidence established responded the fact that it notification of the ac- promptitude; cident with reasonable however, question unimportant because, even after the Com- pany’s employee arrived on scene still took some department, 20 minutes for the fire which had been trying to extricate the to succeed re- automobile, possible moving off the it so as make it shut being testimony at curb there no that it would box, practical point. have been to do this other controlling may regarded feature Wliat be as the defendants, as a whole is that none of case owner and. the nor former .tenant be held defendants, can Street who were act of anticipate responsible illegal for failure of the accident was the real cause Underwood which Helm v. South injuries: resulted in In A. 2d 909. Penn Oil 382 Pa. his upon automobile Underwood parking 1020 of The an of section express violated provision as amended, Vehicle P. L. 905, Code May 1, 1929, his part on violation constituted negligence se: Ashworth per Hannum, A. 209. That Bricker v. Gardner, *7 principles act under well established negligent was, constituting proximate a cause law, superseding and ad- cause of the accident and defendants relieving defendants any prior negli- ditional from liability to what on their even part, assuming, contrary gence ex- has been negligence heretofore said, Pa. 191 A. isted : Kline v. 325 Moyer Albert, 357, Corp., v. Motor 328 343; Freight Hendricks Pyramid v. 347 Pa. Pa. 195 A. Ashworth 907; Hannum, 570, 364 Pa. A. 2d Admr. v. 393, 407; Johnson, 32 Angretti, v. Com- 602, 666; Pittsburgh Railways 73 Cuca v. Bellone, Roadman 579, 779; 367 Pa. pany, v. 108 A. 2d DeLuca Manchester 754; 379 Pa. 483, 380 Pa. Cleaning Company, and Dry Inc., Laundry A. 112 2d 372. 484, show no of the case and the law

Since evidence de defendants additional part on the unneces than becomes Underwood, fendants other various trial errors consider sary R.R. Co., Fornelli v. Penna. complain: which plaintiffs v. A. 365, 164 54; Brogan Philadelphia, Express v. York Motor 2d 671; A. Admrx., 29 208, Fritz, 58 A. 2d Pitts 12; Pa. Carroll 358 A. 2d. Baltimore Pa. Sarne v. burgh, 2dA. 264. Ohio Railroad & trial as to Under- new are entitled a But if so desire. wood defendant each in favor of each

The judgment is af- other than Underwood defendant additional de- favor judgment firmed. new him, is reversed and, fendant Underwood is granted. trial

Dissenting Opinion Concurring Mr. Jus tice Musmanno:

I in that of the decision of the Ma- part concur a new trial the defendant grants against jority part Clifton dissent Underwood, decision which denies a new trial ac- tions remaining defendants.

Fessman Estate.