Sherrill v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1973
• Docket Number: No. 19631,19631
• Citation: 197 S.E.2d 283,260 S.C. 494
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Wilton W. SHERRILL, Jr., a minor by his Guardian Ad Litem Margaret S. Dixson, Respondent-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, and South Carolina Electric andGas Company, Appellants-Respondents.

Page 283

197 S.E.2d 283

260 S.C. 494

Wilton W. SHERRILL, Jr., a minor by his Guardian Ad Litem Margaret S. Dixson, Respondent-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, and South Carolina Electric andGas Company, Appellants-Respondents.

No. 19631.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 6, 1973.

Joseph R. Young of Young, Clement & Rivers, Charleston, John A. Boykin, Jr., and William D. Goddard, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants-respondents.

Allen R. Dupree, North Charleston Heights, for respondent-appellant.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice.

In this case, the complaint alleged that on or about March 1, 1970, plaintiff Wilton W. Sherrill, Jr., an eighteen-year-old boy, incurred electrical shock and severe burns and injuries, resulting from negligence on the part of Southern Bell and/or South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, while engaged in roofing repairs on the roof of a building located at the corner of Spruill Avenue and Hampton Street in Charleston. The answer of both defendants alleged sole negligence and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The trial judge granted a nonsuit in favor of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. The jury returned a verdict of $50,000.00 actual damages against Southern Bell, which has appealed. The single question submitted by Southern Bell, as copied from its brief, is as follows:

'The sole question raised by Southern Bell in this appeal is whether there is any direct or circumstantial evidence of actionable negligence attributable to Southern Bell.'

Sherrill has also appealed, alleging error on the part of the trial judge in refusing to dismiss Southern Bell's appeal because it was untimely. In light of the ruling we hereinafter make, it becomes unnecessary to disuss Sherrill's exception. It is appropriate, however, to state that we think the exception without merit and hold that the appeal is timely. There is left for our consideration only the question raised by Southern Bell as set forth above.

On or about Saturday, Feb. 28, 1970 and Sunday, March 1, 1970, Sherrill was engaged in roofing repair work on the roof of the Palmetto Wrecking & Salvage Company building. A utility pole, owned by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, was located immediately to the west of the building. Another utility pole, owned by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, was located immediately to the east of the building.

A telephone line (owned by Southern Bell and consisting of an insulated transmission line, a non-insulated metallic support cable, and a non-insulated connecting mousing wire) extended between the utility poles. The telephone line was located across and approximately three feet above the roof of the building. The sole purpose of the support cable and mousing wire was to support the transmission line, which was used to carry line and voice current.

In addition to the telephone line, three South Carolina Electric and Gas uninsulated electric power transmission lines extended between the same two utility poles. The first electric power line, a neutral wire, was located approximately seven feet above the telephone line. The second and third electric power lines, both primary wires, were located approximately eleven feet and thirteen feet, respectively, above the telephone line. The neutral line did not carry electrical current, but the two primary lines carried about 8,000 volts. The telephone company used the poles jointly with the power company, including the use of common grounding devices on the poles.

On Saturday and Sunday, Sherrill had on several occasions come into contact with the support cable. No electric shock resulted from such contact. Immediately prior to the accident, Sherrill climbed from the ground to the roof, using an aluminum ladder. The eyewitnesses, testifying for the plaintiff, stated that Sherrill began to pull the ladder onto the roof and in the process backed into the telephone support cable, experiencing the shock and burn injuries for which damages are sought in this litigation. Plaintiff's witness Margaret S. Dixson, an eyewitness to the happening, testified that, after the accident, she noticed a 'sparking' wire 'dangling' from a South Carolina Electric and Gas Company transformer located on the utility pole to the east of the building. There was no evidence that Southern Bell caused the wire to dangle or spark, and there was no evidence that the wire had been either dangling or sparking prior to, or for any appreciable period of time prior to, the happening.

Plaintiff's witness Smith, a duly qualified expert electrician, investigated the scene within a few hours after the plaintiff was injured. He testified that he used a voltmeter and found 120 volts of electrical current on the support cable of Southern Bell. He testified that the current on the telephone support cable indicated an insufficient ground and that his visual inspection failed to disclose a defect in the grounding device and that he could not make an ohmmeter test because the ground wire was charged.

Electricians Smith and Roy A. Martin testified that Sherrill could not have been shocked by electrical current coming from the telephone support cable, since the roof was an insulator, unless the aluminum ladder in...