The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-09-25
COURT TO PASS ON.
BIG FIRE QUESTION
Writ of Error Granted the Texas
Company, Which Was Ordered
to Pay $l3,5OO.
BAKERS PLANT DESTROYED
Gasolenc Hauled Next Door
Caught Fire, but Insurance
Loss Was Settled.

Legal questions involving the. .hnan-
cial liability of one whose negligence
neighbours premises will be passed
upon by the Supreme Court of Appeals
of Virginia. a writ of error and su-
percedeas was granted by Judge Stat
ford G.. White yesterday in the case
Of the Texas Company against George
the city OF Norfolk. bond being required
IN the fes sum of $1,000 On Juno IS
a jury verdict in which damages were
entered in the sum of s13.500 against
the Texas Company in favor of Kolb.
August IA. 1912. Kolb owned and oc-
cupied a building at the Southwest
had Installed machinery and appli-
ances for this business, placing the
$4,000
Used Gnsolenc Motor Truck.
wa The Texas MAS Company on that date
retail gasolene and Kerosene business
In Norfolk, using in, that business de-
Tnsons ete
car. Next door to the bakery was a.
garage belonging to Mrs. NJ. Annie
stable belonging to a man named Jack
/ son.
{ On August Il, ls12, the truck
the delivery of gasolene. operated by
II. p. Common and G.. w. Trederisk. was
driving up CRANKY Street. loaded with
40 gallons OF Gasolene for delivery
In the ordinary course of business.
Near the point indicated something
operators turned into the garage for
repairs. this being the garage in which
the car was ordinarily stored at night.
The spark plug was taken out and
cleaned. and other tests were made
TO see what was the matter with the
motor. after which frederick cranked
/ the car to If would
tunred out that the battery was short
eircuited, the machine emitted a
motor. but also SET, fire to waste oil
and to the load OF gasolenc on the
truck truck, causing fire fire which spbse
| bakery adjoining.
The petition claims that there was
no evidence to show that the employees
OF the Texas Company did not exercise
proper care in making their eXamna-
ton OF the machinery and in cranking
| to short-circuit of the battery which
condition could not have been deter
mined except by turning on the cur
| rent.
| In the trial OF the case the plaintiff
/ charged negligence In taking the truck
/ load of gasolene into the garage. espe-
cially into a building located as this ono
was: that there was violation OF n city
ordinance limiting the quantity OF gas
olcnc and other intammable material
stored In the city limits, and that there
PENDANT and his employees in handling
the gasolcnc ut the time of the fire.
| The defense claimed that it was not
II nuisance per Sc to have oil on de-
! livery wagon IN the ordinary course of
business that the city ordinance cited
had no bearing on this case. and that
the employees had exercised ordinary
care.
The petitioner excerpts to a number
OF instructions given by the trial court.
The evidence brought out the fact that
Iiolb's bakery had insurance OF SEQ,
500 on the building and $4,000 on the
contents. Being unable TO agree, the
insurance was adjusted by arbitration,
the loss on the building being placed
making a total of so3,2l1, which was
paid. From this and other circum
stances the petitioner says it seems
the benefit Of the insurance companies.
Claim for Lost Profits.
In arriving at the amount OF dam
ages before the jury. much stress was
laid OH the loss to Kolb by reason OF
having to rebuild and re equip his plant.
He testified that he was out Of business
seven months. during which time he
lost profits amounting to sl,5o0 per
month The petition brings out the
statement of Kolb that he had very un-
wisely taken government contract by
which he was losing $4,000 n year:
that that contract had just about eX-
pred at the time of the IRE, and mat
he had just then reached the time
when his business might be expected
to show actual profit. The DEFENSE
suggests that one who would make so
in,nrovident a contract once might In
the competition of bidding do 1t again,
and therefore to assess as damages
profits that Kolb might have made was
manifestly unfair. The jury gave a
verdict of damages in the sum OF Sl3,-
500, which sum the court confirmed
The petition for writ of error was pre-
sented by Wilcox, Cooke & Wilcox,
of Norfolk.