39 A. 1053 (Pa. 1898), 301, Turton v. Powelton Electric Co.

Docket Nº:301
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1053

39 A. 1053 (Pa. 1898)

185 Pa. 406

Emily E. Turton

v.

Powelton Electric Company, Appellant, and Postal Telegraph Cable Company

No. 301

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 11, 1898

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.

Judgment affirmed.

Henry F. Walton, with him John K. Andre, for appellant. -- It is a proposition too plain for argument that where two parties are sued together for a tort, neither of them can be discharged from liability by the court, where there is sufficient testimony to go to the jury on the question of negligence.

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 reading

FREE SIGN UP