Negligence, § 2- definition.

2. Negligence is absence or want of care under the circumstances.

[See 20 R. C. L. 9; 3 R. C. L. Supp. 1015; 4 R. C. L. Supp. 1324; 5 R. C. L. Supp. 1074.]

Negligence, § 26

care required.

3. A higher degree of care is required in dealing with a dangerous agency than in the ordinary affairs of life or business, which involve little or no risk.

[See 20 R. C. L. 51; 5 R. C. L. Supp. 1076.]

Negligence, § 83 duty to invitee.

4. One assumes certain duties towards another invited to his place of business and, if he negligently permits a danger of any kind to exist which results in injury to the person invited, without negligence on the latter's part, he is answerable for the consequences.

[See 20 R. C. L. 55; 3 R. C. L. Supp. 1023; 4 R. C. L. Supp. 1329; 5 R. C. L. Supp. 1076.]

5. The mere fact that, when filling a tank under the seat of an automobile, the driver faced the seat, does not prevent his knowing that, when the hose was jerked from his hand, the gasolene, flowing under pressure, spread over the windshield, automobile hood, and lamps, starting a fire, so as to be competent to testify to that fact.

Evidence, § 276 - inference of negli

gence presence of other cause. 6. An inference of negligence will not be permitted to be drawn against one sought to be held liable for another's injury, if there is any other cause to which, with equal fairness, the injury may be attributed.

[See 20 R. C. L. 185; 3 R. C. L. Supp. 1042.]

because of defective valves in the supply tube cannot avoid liability for injury to the driver of the car taking the supply, because of the latter's fault in his manner of handling the tube when he discovers that the valve is defective.

Explosions, § 7 right to rely on presumption of care.

9. An automobile driver stopping at a filling station for gasolene has a right to act upon the assumption that the proprietor will provide proper and safe appliances with which to work, and careful servants. Explosions, § 7 negligence in filling gasolene tank with lamps burning. 10. An automobile driver stopping at a filling station for gasolene with acetylene lamps burning on the car, which are separated from the tank by the windshield, is not so negligent as to prevent his holding the proprietor of the station liable for injuries by burns inflicted by the ignition of gasolene when the hose is jerked out of his hand by an attendant, upon receiving notice that the shut-off valve fails, to work, instead of shutting off the flow at the pump. Appeal, § 370 admission of evidence without objection error.

11. The admission of evidence before objection is made is not reversible error where there is no motion to strike out, and other witnesses have testified to substantially the same facts.

Trial, § 339 instruction as to ef fect of Carlisle Tables.

12. When Carlisle Tables are admitted in evidence in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the court should be very particular to instruct the jury as to their effect. [See 10 R. C. L. 1167; 2 R. C. L. Supp. 1163.]

Damages, § 433 for burns.

13. Thirteen thousand dollars is not excessive to award for injuries to a truck driver earning $55 per week, by burns from gasolene which caused a loss to time of trial of $7,000, and will probably cause permanent loss of earning power, while the depth of the burns and extent of surface covered are such as to destroy some tissue, affect his hearing, and inflict great suffering on him for a long period of time.

the windshield into the cab, setting fire to plaintiff's clothing in the closed cab and to the gasolene vapor from the tank. The cab soon became a seething mass of flames. Plaintiff, in attempting to make his way out of the door on the right side, was prevented because of the flames and intense heat. He then attempted to get out by the window of the door on the left side. When partly through the window his strength failed, and he was unable to help himself further. Bystanders came to the rescue, pulling him from the car. Fire extinguishers were used to put out the flames on his clothing, after which he was taken to a hospital. These facts the jury could and did find from plaintiff's testimony.

Negligence -definition.

The statement of claim contained a number of charges of negligence: That defendant did not use the necessary and proper protections in handling and selling a dangerous agency; nor did it use, maintain, repair, and inspect proper and safe valves and pumps; nor did it furnish a duly qualified, competent, and safe person in charge of the station; and that it failed to shut off the flow of gasolene when requested, carelessly pulling the hose from appellee's hands. From our study of the record, each charge was sustained. "Negligence" is absence or want of care under the circumstances. A higher degree of care is required in dealing with a dangerous agency than in the ordinary affairs of life or business, which involve little or no risk. No absolute standard can be fixed by law, but every reasonable precaution suggested by experience and the known danger ought to be taken. Koelsch v. Philadelphia Co. 152 Pa. 355, 362, 18 L.R.A. 759, 34 Am. St. Rep. 653, 25 Atl. 522. See Shirey v. Consumers' Gas Co. 215 Pa. 399, 64 Atl. 541, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 717, as to the application of the rule, and Gudfelder v. Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 207 Pa. 629, 57 Atl. 70, 15

-care required.

Am. Neg. Rep. 672, as applying to the facts in the present case.

When a person invites another to his place of business, he assumes toward the invitee

vitee.

certain duties, and duty to inif he negligently permits a danger of any kind to exist, which results in injury to the person invited, without negligence on the latter's part, the invitor is answerable for the consequence of such injury. Woodruff v. Painter, 150 Pa. 91, 95, 16 L.R.A. 451, 30 Am. St. Rep. 786, 24 Atl. 621, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 872.

Appellant assails the statement that when the hose was pulled away gasolene fell over over plaintiff, the windshield at his back, the hood, and the acetylene lamps, thus starting the fire. It is urged that, as appellee was standing with his back to these things, it was impossible for him to see what was going on, and as his statement was in direct conflict with physical laws, or matters of such general knowledge, and as he was the only one to sustain plaintiff's case, we should consider these facts and reject this evidence; the case must, therefore, fall.

We do not agree with this contention or conclusion. Other circumstances appear in evidence from which causal connection may be fairly inferred. Appellee testified the gasolene was still flowing from the hose when jerked from him; it was under pressure, and the natural, probable, and direct result of the act would be the discharge of gasolene from the nozzle, throwing it over the objects within reach, touching those spots described by appellee. To further sustain this and appellee's testimony, it appears the end of the hose was on fire when held by the attendant after being jerked from appellee's hands. The testimony of defendant's attendant supports to some extent what appellee contends for, as does the testimony of the witness, Parker, present at the time of the accident. In further support, fire was shown to be on top of the hood. But we are

Witnesses

-sufficiency.

Appellant contends that one of two causes existed to which the injury might be attributed, and for which defendant would not be responsible. Gasolene is a volatile and dangerous substance; while filling the tank inflammable vapor was being thrown off; all the time the acetylene lamps were burning. There was, therefore, a possibility, defendant asserts, that the vapor came in contact with the lamps through the partly opened windshield, causing the fire, and for this defendant was not legally liable. Aside from the evidence by appellee and Parker of direct contact with the stream of gasolene, other circumstances refute appellant's theory.

It appears about 3 cubic feet of gasolene vapor were created during the time the tank was being filled. The cab was 4 by 44 by 5 feet, having a content of 90 cubic feet. Gasolene vapor is about three times as heavy as air. Plaintiff's experts deny that vapor in this space, without other producing cause, could rise above the air from the bottom of the cab to a point at the opening in the windshield, flow out of this opening, and directly descend 2 feet to the acetylene lamps, there to be ignited. From this opening in the windshield to the bottom of the cab there was a partition separating the cab from the lights outside. It is true, if there is any other cause to which with equal fairness the injury may be attributed (and a jury will not be permitted to guess which condition caused the injury), an inference of

ference of neg

ence of other

negligence will not be permitted to be drawn against defendant. Zahniser v. Pennsylvania Torpedo Co. 190 Pa. Evidence-in350, 353, 42 Atl. ligence-pres707; Ott v. Boggs, cause. 219 Pa. 614, 69 Atl. 61; McAvoy v. Kromer, 277 Pa. 196, 120 Atl. 762. But here we have direct evidence of the origin of the fire. As said in Propert v. Flanagan, 277 Pa. 145, 148, 120 Atl. 783, where direct evidence as to the fire's commencement is present, the causal connection through defendant's negligence is established, and if other independent causes did exist, they would not relieve of liability.

valves in gaso

The evidence in relation to the value, its condition, repair, and the driver's knowledge of it, was sufficient to go to the jury. The owner was bound to see that the valve would Explosionsduty to mainwork under ordi- tain shut-off nary circumstances, lene pipe. and, under plaintiff's testimony, could be kept in repair for a limited period of time only. The washers or packing were of a material that easily deteriorated when brought in contact with gasolene. It was testified that inspection should be made once a week, if not once a day, but that no inspection was made of this valve at any time. This particular type of valve was not only not in general use, but was scarcely ever used. The duty to inspect had been neglected. Baker v. Allegheny Valley R. Co. 95 Pa. 211, 40 Am. Rep. 634; Bier v. Standard Mfg. Co. 130 Pa. 446, 18 Atl. 637; McGuigan v. Beatty, 186 Pa. 329, 40 Atl. 490; Eldridge v. Fell Mfg. Co. 240 Pa. 321, 87 Atl. 966.

Was appellee guilty of contributory negligence? He knew the dangerous character of the substance he was using and that when taken into the cab it was close to the acetylene lights outside of the cab, which were permitted to burn. The valve was under his control; when it refused to work, as a prudent man he should have thrown it to the pave