Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.

178 N.W.2d 79, 23 Mich. App. 27, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1786

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1970

DocketDocket No. 6,297

StatusPublished

This text of 178 N.W.2d 79 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., 178 N.W.2d 79, 23 Mich. App. 27, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1786 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On December 1, 1965, Jack L. Hanner’s house caught fire. The fire originated in the basement of the house. It spread, melted a gas meter located in the basement, and, as a result, gas escaping from the meter fed the fire. Unable to terminate the flow of gas, fire department officials at the scene contacted the Michigan Consolidated Gas Company and requested that the main outside the house be shut off. A street crew was dispatched and the gas service was terminated. The house was completely destroyed, however.

Alleging undue delay in termination of the gas service, plaintiffs commenced suit against the gas company. It was claimed that defendant’s negligence resulted in increased damage to the house. Trial was to the court, sitting without a jury. The trial judge found as a fact that defendant was not negligent, as alleged, and entered a judgment of no cause of action. On appeal, the sole issue presented is whether the trial court clearly erred in concluding that defendant was not negligent. GCB. 1963, 810 (2).

At trial, it was plaintiffs’ theory that the street crew, after arrival at the scene, failed to locate, expose, and cap the gas line in a reasonable time. The testimony of one witness, a fire department official, was offered to substantiate plaintiffs’ claim. Testimony offered by defendant, however, tended to show that the task was performed by the street crew in less time than normally required. According to defendant’s evidence, corroborated by its dispatch records, the service crew arrived at the scene at 2:30 a.m. and service was terminated at between 2:53 a.m. and 2:55 a.m. — an elapsed time of 23 to [29]*2925 minutes. A witness for defendant testified that performance of the task at hand normally required 30 to 40 minutes.

In light of the above testimony, the trial court could properly conclude that defendant was not negligent.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

On December 1, 1965, Jack L. Hanner’s house caught fire. The fire originated in the basement of the house. It spread, melted a gas meter located in the basement, and, as a result, gas escaping from the meter fed the fire. Unable to terminate the flow of gas, fire department officials at the scene contacted the Michigan Consolidated Gas Company and requested that the main outside the house be shut off. A street crew was dispatched and the gas service was terminated. The house was completely destroyed, however.

Alleging undue delay in termination of the gas service, plaintiffs commenced suit against the gas company. It was claimed that defendant’s negligence resulted in increased damage to the house. Trial was to the court, sitting without a jury. The trial judge found as a fact that defendant was not negligent, as alleged, and entered a judgment of no cause of action. On appeal, the sole issue presented is whether the trial court clearly erred in concluding that defendant was not negligent. GCB. 1963, 810 (2).

At trial, it was plaintiffs’ theory that the street crew, after arrival at the scene, failed to locate, expose, and cap the gas line in a reasonable time. The testimony of one witness, a fire department official, was offered to substantiate plaintiffs’ claim. Testimony offered by defendant, however, tended to show that the task was performed by the street crew in less time than normally required. According to defendant’s evidence, corroborated by its dispatch records, the service crew arrived at the scene at 2:30 a.m. and service was terminated at between 2:53 a.m. and 2:55 a.m. — an elapsed time of 23 to [29]*2925 minutes. A witness for defendant testified that performance of the task at hand normally required 30 to 40 minutes.

In light of the above testimony, the trial court could properly conclude that defendant was not negligent.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.W.2d 79, 23 Mich. App. 27, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-casualty-surety-co-v-michigan-consolidated-gas-co-michctapp-1970.