39 A. 1053 (Pa. 1898), 301, Turton v. Powelton Electric Co.
|Citation:||39 A. 1053, 185 Pa. 406|
|Opinion Judge:||MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STERRETT:|
|Party Name:||Emily E. Turton v. Powelton Electric Company, Appellant, and Postal Telegraph Cable Company|
|Attorney:||Henry F. Walton, with him John K. Andre, for appellant. Alex. Simpson, Jr., for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before STERRETT, C.J., WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL and FELL, JJ.|
|Case Date:||April 11, 1898|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Pennsylvania|
Argued: January 28, 1898
Appeal, No. 301, Jan. T., 1897, by Powelton Electric Company, one of the defendants, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 906, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before BIDDLE, P.J.
At the trial it appeared that on March 20, 1895, plaintiff received a violent electric shock by coming in contact with a guy wire in the yard of her residence in Philadelphia. The guy wire in question was used to support a pole belonging to the Postal Telegraph Cable Company, and extended across plaintiff's yard to an adjoining building. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff, while chasing a cat, struck the top of her head against the guy wire, receiving a shock from which she suffered serious injury. Other facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $5,000. The defendant, the Powelton Electric Company, appealed.
Errors assigned among others were (4) in directing a judgment in favor of the Postal Telegraph Company; (5) portion of charge quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The conclusion from the facts is that the party who was really responsible to Mrs. Turton for the injury which she received was the Postal Telegraph Cable Company, and therefore the direction of a verdict in favor of that defendant was an inadvertency on the part of the court that was prejudical to a fair disposal of the case against the Powelton Electric Company. The appellant has a right to complain of this ruling, because it is adverse to it.
To hold that the putting of such wires on a pole covered with other wires in the city of Philadelphia is negligence itself, would convict every electric light company in the city of Philadelphia of maintaining such a nuisance as places the lives and property of the citizens in jeopardy...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP