The right to cut off the supply. The com pany or the municipality has, as a general rule, the right to cut off the supply of gas if the bill for supplying it is, not paid within a limited period. Such a by ordi is a reasonable regulation ; Com. v. Philadelphia, 132 Pa. 288, 19 Atl. 136 ; and furnishing gas without objection on account of former indebtedness is not a waiver of the right to shut off the gas for such prior in debtedness ; People v. Gaslight Co., 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 136 ; but the right has been held not to extend to indebtedness of a former occu pant of the premises ; Morey v. Gaslight Co., 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 185; L. R. 4 C. P. D. 410; v. Gaslight Co., 199 Mass. 324, 85 N. E. 180, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1235, 127 Am. St. Rep. 503. Even when the company has the right by statute to cut off the supply for nonpay ment of regular charges it does not extend to charges for special service: 20 U. C. Q. B. 233 ; nor can the supply be cut off from one house for non-payment for another supplied under a different contract ; Gaslight Co. of Baltimore v. Colliday, 25 Md. 1; 7 Grant, U. C. 112; and even when the contract au thorizes refusal to continue a supply in cape of default in payment for "any premises" of the owner it will apply only to future defaults; Lloyd v. Gaslight Co., 1 Mack ey (D. C.) 331. Whenever there is a contro versy as to the indebtedness the consumer may have an injunction ; Sickles 'v. Gaslight Co., 66 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 314 ; contra, Cox v. Gaslight Co., 199 Mass. 324, 85 N. E. 180, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1235, 127 Am. St. Rep. 503, where the remedy was held to be by manda mus. As to the measure of damages see that title. See also WATER.
Liability for negligence. Gas companies and others using or generating gas, artificial or natural, are subject to the general prin ciple that one who uses a force which he can not control is, liable for the consequences, and where it may be controlled by due care and scientific knowledge and appliances he who receives the profit must bear the responsibil ity ; 3 C. B. 1; they are liable for negligence' which must involve the omission of some thing required by, or, the doing of something forbidden by, reasonable care; Hutchinson v. Gaslight Co., 122 Mass. 219 ; 2 Fost. & F. 437; what is such care is not capable of ex act definition but must vary with and con form to the exigencies of the situation ; Hol ly v. Gaslight Co., 8 Gray (Mass.) 123, 69 Am. Dec. 233 ; Smith v. Gaslight Co., 129 Mass. 318 ; the obligation is increased by the dangerous character of the force under control ; Koelsch v. Philadelphia Co., 152 Pa. 355, 25 Atl. 522, 18 L. R. A. 759, 34 Am. St. Rep. 653 ; Butcher v. Gas Co., 12 R. I. 149, 34 Am. Rep. 626 ; Fuchs v. City of St. Louis, 133 Mo. 168, 31, S. W. 115, 34 S. W. 508, 34 L. R. A. 118 ; and it extends to the company's agents and servants ; Louisville Gas Co. v. Gutenlcuntz, 82 Ky. 432; Butcher v. Gas Co., 12 R. I. 149, 34 Am. Rep. 626. The company is liable for such consequences as were natural and probable and, in view of the nature of the agency, ought to have been foreseen ; Oil City Gas Co. v. Robinson, 99
Pa. 1; Koelsch v. Philadelphia Co., 152 Pa. 355, 25 Atl. 522, 18 L. R. A. 759, 34 Am. St. Rep. 653 ; Hunt v. Gaslight Co.,. 8 Allen (Mass.) 169, 85 Am. Dec. 697; Emerson v. Gaslight Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 410. See CAUSA PROXIMA NON REMOTA; Taylor v. BaIdWin, 78 Cal. 517, 21 Pac. 124 ; Lannen v. Gaslight Co., 44 N. Y. 459.
Where the municipality is held liable in damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of a gas company in failing to keep in repair its apparatus located under the sidewalk, the company is liable over to the municipality ; Washington Gaslight Co. v. District of Columbia, 161 U. S. 316, 16 Sup. Ct. 564, 40 L. Ed. 712.
The company is bound to exercise reason able care in the location, structure, and re pair of its pipes to prevent escape of gas so as to become dangerous to life or property ; L. R. 7 Exch. 96 ; Smith v. Light Co., 129 Mass. 318 ; Mississinewa Mining Co. v. Pat ton, 129 Ind. 472, 28 N. E. 1113, 28 Am. St. Rep. 203 ; whether by reason of explosion or inhalation; Schmeer v. Gas Co., 65 Hun 378, 20 N. Y. Supp. 168 ; it must also pro vide with the like care for the inspection of pipes and• repairing leaks ; Pine Bluff Water & Light Co. v. Schneider, 62 Ark. 109, 34 S. W. 547, 33 L. R. A. 366 ; 4 Fost. & F. 324; and the discovery of such leaks ; Consolidated Gas Co. of Baltimore City v. Crocker, 82 Md. 113, 33 Atl. 423, 31 L. R. A. 785 ; Lewis v. Boston Gas Co., 165 Mass. 411, 43 N. E. 178 ; Evans v. Gas Co., 148 N. Y. 112, 42 N. E. 513, 30 L. R. A. 651, 51 Am. St. Rep. 681; Koelsch v. Philadelphia Co., 152 Pa. 355, 25 Atl. 522, 18 L. R. A. 759, 34 Am. St. Rep. 653 ; and the safe condition of its apparatus au thorized to be placed under the streets ; Washington Gaslight Co. v. Dist. of Colum bia, 161 U. S. 316, 16 Sup. Ct. 564, 40 L. Ed. 712. The failure to use such care makes the company jointly liable with one who seeks for the leak with a lighted match, for the results of an explosion ; Pine Bluff Water & Light Co. v. McCain, 62 Ark. 118, 34 S. W. 549. The mere fact that the gas was ex ploded by a lighted match will not relieve the company whose negligence caused the leak; Koelsch v. Philadelphia Co., 152 Pa. 355, 25 Atl. 522, 18 L. R. A. 759, 34 Am. St. Rep. 653. It is not contributory negligence to search for a gas leak with a lighted match ; Pine Bluff Water & Light Co. v. Schneider, 62 Ark. 109, 34 S. W. 547, 33 L. R. A. 366 ; or a candle ; Schmeer v. Gas Co.,,147 N. Y. 529, 42 N. E. 202, 30 L. R. A. 653. A city as a manufacturer and distributor of gas is liable for negligence of its officers, and its agents are bound to the exercise of due care in like manner as those of a private corporation ; Kibele v. City of Philadelphia, 105 Pa. 41; but not unless there is negligence ; Straw bridge v. City of Philadelphia, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 173.