EXPECTATION. See WORDS AND PHRASES, 1282–1285. EXPECTATION OF LIFE. Consideration of, in fixing term of imprisonment, see CRIMINAL LAW, § 186 c Admissibility of mortality tables to show, see EVIDENCE, § 694. . TRIAL, § 226. EXPEDIENCY. Of legislation, right of court to inquire into, see .... COURTS, § 84. surance company, see .... DAMAGES, $ 225. INSURANCE, § 420. See also EXPENDITURES; WORDS AND PHRASES, 1287, 2479, 3981. Prejudicial error in excluding from court room, see APPEAL AND ERROR, § 887 a. a. In general. § 2. Generally. coscoscoscos cascas 3. Liability as affected by presence or absence of negligence. 4. Liability of carrier. 5. Liability of consignor. 6. Assumption of risk. 7. Contributory negligence as a defense. b. Illegal or negligent storage or keeping. § 8. Generally. § 9. Kept in violation of law. § 10. Explosions resulting from acts of children. c. Explosions of boilers, refrigerating machinery, etc. § 12. Resulting from defect in manufacture. .... Opinion evidence as to time necessary to restore Effect of laches to defeat right to injunction Lien for explosives, see Plurality of subjects in title of statute as to, see § 1. Generally. Exclusiveness of Federal regulations as to shipment of explosives, see COMMERCE, § 31 f. Due process in prohibiting extensive storing of explosives within city limits, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, § 551 f. Ordinance against keeping inflammable or explosive oils within city limits, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, § 117 f. Instructions in prosecution for violation of, see TRIAL, § 426 c. a. The business of keeping, storing and dealing in inflammable or explosive oils is a legitimate one and every citizen has an inherent right to engage in the business upon equal terms with any other citizen. Richmond v. Dudley, 13 L.R.A. 587, 129 Ind. 112, 28 N. E. 312. b. A city ordinance cannot authorize a larger quantity of explosive powder to be kept within the city limits than the state statute allows. Cameron v. Kenyon-Connell Commercial Co. 44 L.R.A. 508, 22 Mont. 312, 56 Pac. 358. c. The regulation of the storage of inflammable or explosive oils within the limits of a city is within the police power conferred upon it. Richmond v. Dudley, 13 L.R.A. 597, 129 Ind. 112, 28 N. E. 312. d. Authority to a municipal corporation to regulate the storage of combustible and inflammable materials includes authority to prohibit the storage of refined and other explosive oils within the corporate limits; and an ordinance so providing is not unreasonable. Crowley v. Ellsworth, 69 L.R.A, 276, 114 La. 308, 38 So. 199. II. Injuries from explosions. a. In general. § 2. Generally. . EVIDENCE, § 911 d. .EVIDENCE, § 912 h. ... EVIDENCE, §§ 1032 i, 1577 p. EVIDENCE, § 1391 d. ....INJUNCTION, § 17 q. ..INSURANCE, §§ 335 e, 337-341. .INSURANCE, §§ 635, 821 c, 961967. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, § 39 a. MECHANICS' LIENS, § 36. .MINES, § 48 c. .NUISANCES, §§ 47-49. . STATUTES, § 132 b, c. TRIAL, 98 c. Measure of damages for injuries by, see DAMAGES, § 137 a, b. Measure of damages for injury to building by, see DAMAGES, § 264 a. Judicial notice as to, see EVIDENCE, § 40 a. Presumption of servant's knowledge of danger of, see EVIDENCE, § 194 e. Presumption that explosion was the cause of death, see EVIDENCE, § 273 m. Presumption and burden of proof as to neg ligence generally, see EVIDENCE, §§ 319 a, 338. Presumption of negligence from injury to servant by explosion, see EVIDENCE, § 311 r, s. Presumption as to contributory negligence, see EVIDENCE, § 365. Admissibility in evidence of photographs taken after explosion, see EVIDENCE, § 722 j. Hypothetical questions as to cause of explosion, see EVIDENCE, § 860. Expert evidence as to tendency of emery wheels to burst, see EVIDENCE, § 916 c. Relevancy of evidence as to negligence causing explosion, see EVIDENCE, §§ 1268 i, 1273, 1276 h. Sufficiency of proof as to cause of explosion, see EVIDENCE, § 1429 h. Sufficiency of proof of negligence, see EVI DENCE, SS 1453 g, 1461 a, b, 1481 a. Variance between pleading and proof in ac tion for injuries by explosion of gas, see EVIDENCE, § 1695 k. Injury resulting from fright caused by explosion, see FRIGHT, §§ 1 r-t, 3 a, b. Of gas, see Gas, § 35. Recovery over in case of, see INDEMNITY, § 7 a; JUDGMENT, § 201 a. As affecting insurer's liability, see INSURANCE, § 635. Liability for injury by explosion of fire. Injury to servants of tenant by explosion works generally, see AMUSEMENTS, ETC., § 6 t, u, of digester in pulp mill, see LANDLORD AND TENANT, § 195 e. II. Injuries from explosions. a. In general. Injury to minor employee from explosion | Instructions in action for, see TRIAL, § 398. Venue of action for, see VENUE, § 3 d. Recovery under Workmen's Compensation Act for injury to employee by explo sion, see WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, § 51 m. of bottle containing carbonated beverage, see MASTER AND SERVANT, § 79 h. Duty to warn servant of danger of explosion, see MASTER AND SERVANT, § 116. Injury to employee by, generally, see MASTER AND SERVANT, §§ 150 a, 1, a. The highest degree of care is required 151 n, 153, 213 d, 218 b, c. Liability of employer for injury to servant of persons having the possession and con by explosion of emery wheel, see Mas-trol of dangerous explosives. Olson v. Gill Home Invest. Co. 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 884, 58 TER AND SERVANT, § 164. Injury to employee by explosion in powder Wash. 151, 108 Pac. 140. mill, see MASTER AND SERVANT, § 168 X. Liability for injury to employee by explosion of fire damp, see MASTER AND SERVANT, § 169 j. Injuries to employee by explosion of controller of street car, see MASTER AND SERVANT, § 197 b. b. The utmost caution must be used in the care and custody of dangerous explo- 64. c. The rule in respect to dangerous explosives requires a vigilance in safeguarding them, commensurate to the character of the explosive and the danger to be apDahl V. prehended therefrom. Valley Dredging Co. 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1173, 125 Liability for injury to servant by acts of AND Injury to traveler by explosion of peanut roaster, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, Municipal liability for injury by blasting, to fireworks, see MUNICIPAL CORPORA TIONS, §§ 221, 277. Municipal liability for explosion in sewer, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, § 241. Municipal liability for injury by bursting of watermain, see MUNICIPAL CORPORA- Liability of city for negligence of employ Of bottle of beverage, manufacturer's lia- Of defective cartridge negligently sold, see Of threshing machine cylinder, see NEGLI- for injury, see PLEADING, § 207 a. explosion, see PLEADING, § 379. Proximate cause of injury, see PROXIMATE CAUSE, II. d. Proximate cause of injury from fright caused by, see PROXIMATE CAUSE, § 95 b. d. The degree of care required of persons having the possession and control of dangerous explosives, such as firearms or dynamite, is of the highest. The utmost care must be exercised, respecting the care and custody of such instrumentalities, to guard against injury to others. The degree of care must be commensurate with the dangerous nature of the article, and is greater and more exacting as respects young children. Krachanake v. Acme Mfg. Co. L.R.A.1918E, 801, 175 N. C. 435, 95 S. E. 12. f. The owner of so inherently dangerous a commodity as solidified glycerine is required to exert the highest degree of care to keep it in close custody to prevent its doing mischief, and that duty never ceases; and such owner is liable for all the natural and probable consequences which flow from and breach of that duty. Clark v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours Powder Co. L.R.A.1915E, 479, 94 Kan. 268, 146 Pac. 320. g. Dynamite is an inherently dangerous agency, and persons who use it must ex ercise care corresponding with the danger. Chesapeake Stone Co. v. Holbrook, L.R.A. 1916D, 311, 168 Ky. 128, 181 S. W. 953. h. The degree of care required of persons having the possession and control of dangerous explosives, such as firearms or dy namite, is of the highest; the utmost care must be exercised, respecting the care and custody of such instrumentalities, to guard against injury to others. Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co. 70 L.R.A. 503, 95 Minn. 477, 104 N. W. 443. i. Injury to any property within the cir cle of danger from an explosion of nitroglycerin entitles the owner to recover the a. In general. ful business, with care and skill, so that it is no nuisance, and there is no proof of fault or negligence. Vieth v. Hope Salt & Coal Co. 57 L.R.A. 410, 51 W. Va. 96, 41 S. E. 187. II. Injuries from explosions. § 3. Liability as affected by presence See also post, § 4 c. a. Negligence in the keeping of gunpow. der or in the manner of its keeping is requisite to impose a liability for damages resulting to another by an accidental explosion or fire. Kinney v. Koopmann, 37 L.R.A. 497, 116 Ala. 310, 22 So. 593. b. If large quantities of explosives are kept at such a place and under such surrounding circumstances as to render it dan gerous to the people or property in the neighborhood, by reason of their liability to explode and do injury,-in other words, to create a nuisance,-one injured can recover without showing any negligence in the manner of keeping the explosives. Rudder v. Koopmann, 37 L.R.A. 489, 116 Ala. 332, 22 So. 601. c. One who stores nitro-glycerin on his own premises is liable for injuries caused to surrounding property by its exploding, although he neither violates any provision of the law regulating its storage, nor is chargeable with negligence contributing to the explosion. Bradford Glycerine Co. V. St. Mary's Woolen Mfg. Co. 45 L.R.A. 658, 60 Ohio St. 560, 54 N. E. 528. g. One is not liable for injuries caused by an explosion of a tank of gas upon his premises, if it was not at the time in his custody and control. Conley v. United Drug Co. L.R.A.1915D, 830, 218 Mass. 238, 105 N. E. 975. § 4. Liability of carrier. Injury to street car passenger by explosion, see CARRIERS, § 278 e. Injury by explosion of oil to passenger who has left car, see CARRIERS, § 336 c-e. Limiting carrier's liability as to, see CARRIERS, § 595. a. It is the duty of a railroad company to take every proper precaution to prevent personal injuries to one lawfully upon its premises, from explosions precipitated through the carelessness of its servant. Jacobs v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co. 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 41, 212 Mass. 96, 98 N. E. 688. b. A common carrier is not an insurer against injury to neighboring property from explosives in its possession for transportation. Actiesselskabet Ingrid v. Central R. Co. L.R.A.1916B, 716, 216 Fed. 72, 991, 132 C. C. A. 316, 665. c. Neither the maker, the carrier, nor the lighterman is liable for injury done to neighboring property by the unexplained explosion of dynamite properly packed and carefully handled, while it is being transferred in the usual manner by experienced men from a railroad car to a lighter at a railroad pier. Actiesselskabet Ingrid v. Central R. Co. L.R.A.1916B, 716, 216 Fed. 72, 991, 132 C. C. A. 316, 665. d. Keeping large quantities of dynamite and gunpowder in a wooden store in a thickly settled portion of an incorporated town, where there are many buildings and persons in proximity, will create a liability for the burning of a building which is set (Annotated) on fire by firebrands cast upon it by an ex- d. An agreement by a railroad company, plosion of the dangerous materials, although in moving a vessel from one of its piers at this was caused by a fire which originated which it was discharging to another, to ason the premises of a third person and with-sume the cost and risk of the operation, does out and fault of the owner of the explosives. Rudder v. Koopmann, 37 L.R.A. 489, 116 Ala. 332, 22 So. 601. e. That one who maintains a large quantity of dynamite in a shed near a highway and railroad track, without notice to the public, is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, does not render him liable for injury to a person who, without right, uses a building as a target for gun practice, thereby causing an explosion, where there is nothing to cause the owner to believe that the building will be used for such purposes, since he is not bound to foresee that it will be so used and that injury will result; and he therefore owes no duty to notify such trespasser of the danger. McGehee v. Norfolk & S. R. Co. 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 119, 147 N. C. 142, 60 S. E. 912. f. No liability for damages to a neighbor, caused by the explosion of a steam boiler arises where one places the boiler upon his premises, and operates it in a law. I not render it liable for injury to the vessel by an explosion of a car of dynamite at the latter pier, where the car was plainly labeled, so that whatever danger there might be from it was not concealed. Actiesselskabet Ingrid v. Central R. Co. L.R.A. 1916B, 716, 216 Fed. 72, 991, 132 C. C. A. 316, 665. § 5. Liability of consignor. Evidence of wantonness in leaving bomb in alley, see EVIDENCE, § 1145 h. stove pipe enamel, see EVIDENCE, §§ 1274 a, 1455 b, c, 1666 b. Of See also ante, § 4 c. a. Ownership of gunpowder consigned for sale on commission does not render the owners liable for an explosion which occurs while it is in the hands of the consignee. Abrahams v. California Powder Works, 8 L.R.A. 378, 5 N. M. 479, 23 Pac. 785. b. One delivering gas naphtha to a consignee in a tank car provided by himself is liable in case a servant of the consignee, whose duty it is to unload the car, is killed |