Solda v. Hanreddy

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Master and servant, § 683*—uMat proof essential in action for injury by explosion in tunnel. In an action by an employee to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the accumulation of inflammable gas in dangerous quantities in a tunnel connecting with the one in which plaintiff was working and by failure of defendant to warn him thereof, in order to show negligence it is incumbent on plaintiff to prove that there was inflammable gas in dangerous quantities accumulated in such connecting tunnel and that defendant knew or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known of the presence of the gas and that it was capable of producing injury, and that plaintiff did not know and did not have equal opportunity with defendant of knowing thereof at the time of the injury.</p> <p>2. Evidence, § 466*—when circumstantial evidence insufficient. When circumstantial evidence is relied on to prove a fact, the circumstances must be proved and not themselves presumed.</p> <p>3. Evidence, § 23*—when one presumption not basis for another, A presumption of fact is not alone a legitimate foundation for a second presumption of fact.</p> <p>4. Master and servant, § 683*—when evidence insufficient to support a verdict. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, evidence examined and held insufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff.</p>