Negligence—Explosion op Dynamite — Destruction op Premises op Grantor—Maxim.—Where a powder company is charged with negligence in the use of dynamite upon its premises, whereby an explosion was caused resulting in the destruction of the plaintiff’s property, the fact that the plaintiff sold the premises where the explosion occurred for the purpose of a dynamite factory is not material, and the maxim, Volenti non fit injuria, does not apply to the case.

Id.—Rights op Grantor—Oare op Grantee—Assumption op Risk.— In making a grant of premises for the purpose of a dynamite factory the grantor has a right to assume that due care will be exercised in the conduct of the business, and has a right to demand that such care be exercised; and the grantor does not assume the risk of explosions caused by the negligent acts of the owner of the powder works by continuing to do business near their locality after being served with notice of the danger that surrounds the manufacture of dynamite.

Id.—Presumption op Negligence prom Fact op Explosion.—Negligence is prima facie presumed from the fact of the explosion of a nitro-glycerine factory, in the absence of evidence showing care on the part of the employees.

Id.—Accident out op Ordinary Course—Contractual Relation not Necessary.—When a thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care, and no question of contractual relation forms an element in such a case.

Id.—Expert Evidence.—The prima fade case of negligence arising from the fact of the explosion is strengthened and made complete by expert testimony to the effect that, if the factory was properly conducted and the employees were careful during the process of manufacturing, an explosion would not occur.