Mcisaac v. Northampton Elec. Lighting Co.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1898 |
| Parties | MCISAAC v. NORTHAMPTON ELECTRIC LIGHTING CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Carroll, McClintock & Stapleton, Jr., for plaintiff.
Wm. G Bassett, for defendant.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a lineman, and was injured by the breaking and falling of a pole on which the defendant's wires were suspended. The pole was about 40 feet in length, was set in the ground about 5 feet, and was about 35 feet high. The undisputed evidence tended to show that it was badly decayed a few inches below the surface of the ground, so that it broke off square with the strain upon it resulting from the plaintiff's weight and the force from wires drawing upon it after other wires had been removed, which probably had previously tended to counteract the strain from those that remained. The plaintiff contends that the defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to ascertain whether the pole was sound and strong or to take other precautions for his safety.
The plaintiff was directed to go and take down from the pole the two wires upon it which belonged to the defendant, and to put them on a new pole near by, which had been erected on account of a change of grade in a railroad at a crossing. He went alone to do the work, using a horse and wagon belonging to the defendant to carry such tools and materials as he thought he needed. He was a man of experience in this kind of business, and the method of doing the work he seems to have determined for himself. The pole was of chestnut wood, about 8 inches in diameter at the top, and about 14 inches at the surface of the ground. It had been set between eight and nine years, and the evidence tended to prove that it showed no weakness or sign of decay above the ground.
A fundamental question is whether the defendant owed to a lineman whose business it was to work upon poles all along the line, as occasion might require, the duty to inspect its poles below the ground, and inform the lineman whenever any of them were so decayed as to be unsafe to work upon. The plaintiff admitted in his testimony that he knew that the life of a pole was limited, and that any pole after a time would become unsafe. He had worked upon poles in the construction and repair of electric lines many years. When he engaged to work for the defendant he knew it would be his duty to go upon poles that had been set in the ground an uncertain length of time. He must have known that the work of climbing poles and taking down and putting up wires would often put a strain upon a pole much greater than it would be exposed to in sustaining wires when they were all in their proper positions. He must have known that it would be inexpedient and impracticable to have a man or company of men to go and examine each pole upon which a lineman was about to work, to see whether it would sustain the strain which the work would put upon it. The evidence was undisputed that it was easy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramon v. Interstate Utilities Co.
... ... negligence on the part of the defendant. ( McIsaac v ... North-hampton Electric Lighting Co., 172 Mass. 89, 70 ... Am ... Co., 38 Ind.App. 607, 78 N.E. 687; ... Consolidated Gas, Elec. Light & Power Co. v ... Chambers, 112 Ind. 324, 75 A. 241, 26 L. R ... ...
-
Roberts v. Missouri and Kansas Telephone Company
...Co., 68 Mo.App. 387; Thomas v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 199; Nugent v. Milling Co., 131 Mo. 245; McIsaac v. Electric Co., 172 Mass. 89; s. c., 51 N.E. 524; Electric Company v. Gallagher, 68 Ill.App. 248. (2) The evidence of the plaintiff at the trial established a clear case of contributory neglig......
-
McGuire v. Bell Tel. Co. of Buffalo
...and that the common practice of telegraph or telephone companies is to make special inspection of their poles. In McIsaac v. Lighting Co., 172 Mass. 89, 51 N. E. 524, it was held that the defendant was not bound, as against its linemen, to inspect its poles below the surface of the ground. ......
-
Miller v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Company
...applied the rule that "A servant cannot recover for injury caused by the very defect he was employed to repair." In McIsaac v. Lighting Co., 51 N.E. 524 (172 Mass. 89), another case of injury caused by the fall of a rotten the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held: "We think that one......