II. Injuries from explosions. a. In general. by an explosion due to the fact that the car is in such defective condition that defendant cannot unload it in the ordinary way with safety. Standard Oil Co. v. Wakefield, 66 L.R.A. 792, 102 Va. 824, 47 S. E. 830. c. A shipper of naphtha described as "carbon oil" in the freight bill, in barrels marked "unsafe for illuminating purposes," is liable to the conductor of the train who was injured by an explosion while in the car where the naphtha was with a lamp, if he did not know what was in the barrels, although the carrier had been informed of their contents. Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney, 14 L.R.A. 677, 92 Ky. 367, 17 S. W. 1025. § 6. Assumption of risk. By employee, see MASTER AND SERVANT, §§ 243 i-1, 250 k, 268. Imputing to owner of building injured by explosion negligence of tenant, NEGLIGENCE, § 164 d. see oil thereon directly from a can, and is injured by the resulting explosion, is guilty of contributory negligence, as matter of law, in assuming that the oil was standard kerosene, and cannot recover dam. ages from the tradesman who sold him the oil, although it was in fact one ninth part gasolene. Morrison v. Lee, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 650, 16 N. D. 377, 113 N. W. 1025. d. One is not negligent in using upon a stove a blacking compound which she might from the directions on the can reasonably conclude was intended for such use. Wolcho v. A. J. Rosenbluth & Co. 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 571, 81 Conn. 358, 71 Atl. 566. e. Whether or no an employee of a consignee of a car of gas naphtha is guilty of negligence in attempting to unload the car in the ordinary way, when, upon attempting to do so, he learns that the valve at the entrance of the discharge pipe is not tight, so that before the connections can be made with such pipe the naphtha begins to flow, and explodes, is a question for the Standard Oil Co. v. Wakefield, 66 jury. L.R.A. 792, 102 Va. 824, 47 S. E. 830. b. Illegal or negligent storage or keeping. a. The risk of injury by an explosion of a powder magazine is not assumed by the owner of premises by reason of the fact that other powder magazines were in the neighborhood when the lot was purchased and the buildings erected, and that in one of the other powder companies the owner's husband was a stockholder, and that she had leased land to other companies for stor-88. Generally. ing powder, where neither she nor her husband had ever been employed by, or had relations of any kind with, the owner of the magazine which exploded. Laflin & R. Powder Co. v. Tearney, 7 L.R.A. 262, 131 Ill. 322, 23 N. E. 389. b. The risk of damages from an explosion in a dynamite factory is not assumed by conveying land for use in that business, and by continuing to carry on business near by after one explosion has occurred. Judson v. Giant Powder Co. 29 L.R.A. 718, 107 Cal. 549, 40 Pac. 1020. § 7. Contributory negligence as a defense. Of children, see post, § 10. Of passenger, see CARRIERS, § 352 d. Presumption of criminal intent from pos- Injury to employee, see MASTER AND Serv- Injunction against as nuisance, see NUI- Allegations as to, see PLEADING, § 342 a. See also post, § 10 c. a. The law implies a duty not to place or cause to remain in a public highway a bomb capable of inflicting injury by being exploded. Wells v. Gallagher, 3 L.R.A. Of servants, see MASTER AND SERVANT, $$ (N.S.) 759, 144 Ala. 363, 39 So. 747. 313, 329 a, b. a. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by an explosion, and alleged to be due to the defendant's negligent act in selling the plaintiff kerosene oil containing a mixture of gasolene, contributory negligence is a defense, where it is not claimed that the sale was made with wilful intent to injure the plaintiff. Morrison v. Lee, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 650, 16 N. D. 377, 113 N. W. 1025. b. A statute making one selling illuminating oil which is below a standard test, liable for injuries caused by its explosion, does not abrogate the defense of contribu tory negligence of the person injured, where such contributory negligence was the proximate and efficient cause of the explosion. Morrison v. Lee, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 412, 22 N. D. 251, 133 N. W. 548. (Annotated) e. One who, with knowledge of the fact that a fire is burning in the stove, pours (Annotated) b. It is gross negligence for an agent of well with solidified glycerine, to leave a a powder company, after shooting an oil Clark v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours Powder quart of that explosive lying near the well. Co. L.R.A.1915E, 479, 94 Kan. 268, 146 Pac. 320. II. Injuries from explosions. b. Illegal or negligent storage or keeping. cause of an attempt to use fluid from an ant of the company, a mere volunteer, nor yet a mere trespasser, and is not entitled c. An explosion of giant powder kept by to the protection owed by the railroad coma corporation within the city limits, in vio-pany to the public traveling on such right lation of law, renders the corporation liable for the damages thereby caused. Cameron v. Kenyon-Connell Commercial Co. 44 L.R.A. 508, 22 Mont. 312, 56 Pac. 358. d. A powder company which knowingly aids and abets a person in maintaining a dangerous nuisance, by wrongfully and negligently storing dynamite in disregard of public safety and a city ordinance, will not be relieved of liability for an injury resulting from an explosion, although it did not own such powder. Pinson v. Young, L.R.A.1917F, 621, 100 Kan. 452, 164 Pac. 1102. § 10. Explosions resulting from acts of children. a. The degree of care required of persons having control of dangerous explosives, to prevent harm to others, is greater and more exacting as respects young children. Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co. 70 L.R.A. 503, 95 Minn. 477, 104 N. W. 443. b. It is actionable negligence to leave bombs or other explosives in a position where they are liable to be found and exploded by children to their injury. Sroka v. Halliday, L.R.A.1918E, 688, 41 R. I. 322, 103 Atl. 799. of way; but the railroad company is liable to him for such an injury, if caused by the negligence of the company or its servants after knowledge of the boy's employment by the station agent; but before notice of such employment it is not bound to keep the right of way more safe than if the station agent attended to the lights himself. Cleveland, Terminal & Valley R. Co. v. Marsh, 52 L.R.A. 142, 63 Ohio St. 236, 58 N. E. 821. f. A railroad company which leaves dynamite exposed on its premises, where children have, to the knowledge of its servants, been in the habit of playing, is liable for an injury to one of them caused by the explosion of a stick of dynamite which they take from the premises. Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co. 70 L.R.A. 503, 95 Minn. 477, 104 N. W. 443. g. The storing of dynamite in a partially buried box on a vacant lot to which chil dren are accustomed to resort to play is negligence which will render the one guilty thereof liable for injuries to a child by the explosion of one of the sticks, which was taken from the box by children who had resorted to the lot to play, and ignited by c. That a boy carried a bomb found in one of them in ignorance of its explosive character. a public highway to an adjacent yard and Nelson v. McLellan, 60 L.R.A. there exploded it, to his injury, will not 793, 31 Wash. 208, 71 Pac. 747. relieve from liability the one responsible h. A property owner is negligent in leav for the bomb being where it was. Wellsing, in violation of a municipal ordinance, v. Gallagher, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 759, 144 Ala. 363, 39 So. 747. d. A railroad company is not liable for injury to a child by the explosion of a torpedo which it finds upon the track, where it had been left to guard a train standing at a station against other incoming trains, although children were accustomed to play on the track at the place where it was left,-at least where the torpedo was picked up by the child before the necessity for its use had ceased. St. Louis & S. F. R Co. v. Williams, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 94, 98 Ark. 72, 135 S. W. 804. e. A railroad company is not liable for the death of a boy whose companion, while with him at its station for a proper purpose, had picked up a torpedo carelessly dropped from a train, carried it to his home sticks of dynamite in an unlocked shanty i. A landowner is not liable for injury to a trespassing child through the explosion of dynamite carelessly left in an exposed position on the property. Hobbs v. George W. Blanchard & Sons Co. 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 939, 75 N. H. 73, 70 Atl. 1082. j. That a boy injured by an explosion of dynamite was trespassing on the property where it was stored will not relieve the owner, as matter of law, from liability for his injury, where it was stored needlessly, without guard, in an unlocked building on II. Injuries from explosions. b. Illegal or negligent storage or keeping. a vacant city lot where boys were known to k. The owner of a lumber camp who negligently leaves dynamite in an exposed position, where it may be likely to cause injury to a child invited to the camp by dwellers therein under authority implied from the fact that the camp was maintained as their place of abode, may be liable for an injury so caused. Hobbs v. George W. Blanchard & Sons Co. 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 939, 75 N. H. 73, 70 Atl. 1082. kl. That a boy visiting a lumber camp by invitation, without knowing its character, strikes and explodes dynamite carelessly left where he can come in contract with it, does not necessarily prevent holding the property owner liable for the injury; but such recovery may be had if his act was not in fact a trespass or negligent, but merely a reasonable and lawful enjoyment of his permission to be upon the premises and to act as a boy naturally would under the circumstances. Hobbs v. George W. Blanchard & Sons Co. 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 939, 75 N. H. 73, 70 Atl. 1082. 1. A thirteen-year-old boy cannot be said to be negligent as matter of law in attempting to pry a cap off a dynamite stick, which causes an explosion, to his injury, where there is nothing to show that he had any knowledge that such a proceeding would cause an explosion. Olson v. Gill Home Invest. Co. 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 884, 58 Wash. 151, 108 Pac. 140. 11. A normal ten-year-old boy who takes dynamite caps from a contractor's tool box, which is open in a public highway, cannot hold the contrator liable for an injury caused by the explosion of a cap, although he might have been negligent in leaving them so exposed, because the boy himself is a trespasser. Nicolosi v. Clark, L.R.A. 1915F, 638, 169 Cal. 746, 147 Pac. 971. m. It is negligence to leave dynamite caps stored in an unlocked box accessible to the public, near a public highway and residences, which will render the responsible person liable for injuries to a child who takes some of the caps and is injured by their explosion. Krachanake v. Acme Mfg. Co. L.R.A.1918E, 801, 175 N. C. 435, 95 S. E. 851. a n. Leaving dynamite caps stored on dark beam in a barn when the building is sold to be removed from the land is not such negligence as will render the seller liable for injury to a child of the purchaser, who is injured while playing with the caps after they had been found. Finkbeiner v. Solomon, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1257, 225 Pa. 333, 74 Atl. 170. (Annotated) o. The leaving of powder cans with small amounts of powder remaining therein in a place accessible to young boys is actionable negligence. Folsom-Morris Coal Min. Co. v. De Vork, L.R.A.1917A, 1290, Okla. -, 160 Pac. 64. (Annotated) p. A boy so young that he does not un q. The owners of a dredge, the motive power of which is a naphtha engine, are not guilty of negligence in leaving a quart can of naphtha used for priming the engine on a shelf back of the engine, when the crew left the dredge for a meal, so as to render the owners liable for injuries to trespassing children who obtained possession of the naphtha pot and threw it on a fire, where it did not appear that anyone had ever previously meddled with the pot, or that the owners had any reason to anticipate that the particular children injured, or anyone else might do so. Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 52_L.R.A.(N.S.) 1173, 125 Minn. 90, 145 N. W. 796. r. The mere failure of the owner of a dredge to guard naphtha which is kept at a proper place, where there is no reason to anticipate that it will be meddled with, so that trespassing children cannot get possession of it, does not of itself constitute actionable negligence, under either the doctrine of the Turntable Cases or the rule applying to explosives. Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1173, 125 Minn. 90, 145 N. W. 796. s. A railroad company is not negligent in leaving an empty alcohol barrel on the platform at destination, although it has a caution notice upon it, if the notice was put on the package when full, and its rules did not require such notices on empty packages, so as to render it liable for injury to a child who removes the stopper and places a lighted match at the vent, causing an explosion of gas formed from the small amount of liquid left in it. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Waggoner, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 181, 112 Ark. 593, 166 S. W. 948. t. A mining company that left unguarded large quantities of carbide, a dangerous substance and attractive to children of tender years, on its premises near a public street, knowing that such children were accustomed to pick up the carbide, pour water upon it, and explode the gas thereby generated, by applying a light, is liable for the injuries resulting to a child five years of age who secured some of the carbide so left by the defendant, put it in a can, poured water upon it, and was seriously injured in the explosion which followed the lighting of the gas thereby generated. Juntti v. Oliver Iron Min. Co. 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 840, 119 Minn. 518, 138 N. W. 673. (Annotated) c. Explosions of boilers, refrigerating machinery, etc. § 11. Generally. In absence of negligence, see ante, § 3 f. II. Injuries from explosions, c. Explosions of boilers, refrigerating machinery, etc. Presumption and burden of proof as to See also NEGLIGENCE, § 85 b. a. Time for repairs after notice of the unsafe condition of a locomotive boiler cannot be claimed by a railroad company, so as to excuse it from liability for injury to a person near the railroad, caused by an explosion of the boiler, if it could have avoided the explosion by discontinuing the use of the locomotive. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Lynch, 34 L.R.A. 293, 147 Ind. 165, 44 N. E. 997, 46 N. E. 471. b. The owner of a boiler does not perform his duty to the owner of adjoining buildings by merely employing competent persons to inspect and repair the boiler, but he must, in addition, see that they, as reputable mechanics, adopt a plan for the repairs, and carry it out, Anderson v. Hays Mfg. Co. 63 L.R.A. 540, 207 Pa. 106, 56 Atl. 345. c. The owner of a boiler which has been out of repair is not liable to adjoining property owners for injuries caused by its explosion, if he selected competent persons to make the repairs, and subsequently secured an inspection by competent persons, even though the mechanics and inspectors did not perform their duty. Anderson v. Hays Mfg. Co. 63 L.R.A. 540, 207 Pa. 106, 56 Atl. 345. d. To relieve the owner of a boiler from liability for injuries to adjoining property by its explosion, on the ground that he committed its inspection to a boiler insurance company, he must show that the inspectors furnished by the company were competent, and that they properly inspected the boiler, and truthfully reported the result of their inspection. Anderson v. Hays Mfg. Co. 63 L.R.A. 540, 207 Pa. 106, 56 Atl. 345. e. The owner of a boiler is not liable to owners of adjoining property for injuries caused by its explosion through the negligence of persons selected by him to inspect and repair it, where the persons selected to do that work are competent, and he is not aware of negligence in the performance of the duty. Anderson v. Hays Mfg. Co. 63 L.R.A. 540, 207 Pa. 106, 56 Atl. 345. f. The explosion of the generator of a refrigerating machine a minute or two after tightening nuts to stop a leak, under an ammonia pressure much less than that which had been sustained the day before, is not necessarily the result of an unforeseen and unaccountable cause not chargeable to any negligence, when the nuts were tightened by inexperienced men, and the equality of the strain upon the parts may have been disturbed in tightening them. Ryan v. Los Angeles Ice & Cold Storage Co. 32 L.R.A. 524, 112 Cal. 244, 44 Pac. 471. 12. Resulting from defect in manufacture. a. The owner of a boiler is not liable for injuries resulting from an explosion thereof if the explosion came from defects in the manufacture of the boiler, in the absence of proof that such defects were known to him or discoverable upon examination, or by the application of known tests, and the fact that the boiler was purchased of reputable manufacturers is proper to be considered as tending to justify its use. Vieth v. Hope Salt & Coal Co. 57 L.R.A. 410, 51 W. Va. 96, 41 S. E. 187. EXPLOSIVES. See EXPLOSIONS AND EXPLOSIVES. EXPORTATION. Of Philippine coin, validity of statute as to, see .... CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, § 493. Power of state to impose, see EXPORT DUTIES. ..COMMERCE, § 137. |