![](https://SOULREST.ORG/image/181.jpg)
WEIGHT: 50 kg
Breast: Large
1 HOUR:80$
NIGHT: +80$
Sex services: Female Ejaculation, Naturism/Nudism, Cross Dressing, Deep Throat, Dinner Dates
Bruggeman, William F. McNagny, Robert L. Thompson, Jr. John H. Kruecheberg, Gary A. Gilmore S. Haynie, David B. Keller, Marvin S. This case grew out of an explosion of a gas main at the corner of Broadway and Kinsmoor, also known as Old Mill Road, in the downtown area of Fort Wayne, Indiana, on February 3, , near the residence of Plaintiff-Appellee, Regina Otis.
Appellee filed her complaint on August 25, , for personal injury damages as a result of said explosion, which as amended, in substance, alleges:. The first pleading paragraph was in admission and denial under Rule of this Court, and contained the specific allegation that the employees of the Appellant Dehner were furnished to the Appellant NIPSCO and the Appellant Dehner did not undertake nor was it given the responsibility for determining the adequacy of the procedures specified by the Appellant NIPSCO, all of which was reserved to itself by NIPSCO and its construction and engineering department.
In its second paragraph of answer, the Appellant Dehner, averred specifically that any damage suffered by the plaintiff was due solely to the negligence of NIPSCO in failing to properly design, plan, test and inspect the line. In its fourth paragraph of answer the Appellant Dehner pointed out that when the line was completed and installed it was tested by NIPSCO, approved by NIPSCO and accepted by NIPSCO and has ever since been in their exclusive custody, supervision and control, and that Dehner has had no control, supervision or interest therein, knowledge thereof, access thereto or responsibilty therefor since that time.
Dehner further averred that when the line was tested, approved and accepted by NIPSCO, NIPSCO assumed fully all control, supervision, interest, knowledge, access and responsibility for the gas main and was alone in privity with the plaintiff. In its fifth paragraph of answer Appellant Dehner specifically alleged that any condition permitting the escape of gas from the main was the result of matters arising after the completion of the line which were not in the control of Dehner, which arose without its fault, and which include but are not limited to any one or more of the following causes:.
The activity of natural corrosive elements and forces and the increased stress to which said line was subject as a result of the increased traffic load on Broadway, all of which forces not being within the contemplations of the plans and specifications of NIPSCO. Since NIPSCO is obviously not serious about its assertions in its Motion for a New Trial, we are not going to burden this opinion with a point by point exposition of them, although we will cover most of them in the course of this opinion.