Overall v. Louisville Electric Light Co.

• Decision Date: 18 October 1898
• Citation: 47 S.W. 442
• Parties: OVERALL v. LOUISVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

47 S.W. 442

OVERALL v. LOUISVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 18, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Wade Overall against Louisville Electric Light Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed. Junius C. Klein and Matt O'Doherty, for appellant.

BURNAM J.

Plaintiff alleges in this action that he was employed as lineman by the Ohio Valley Telephone Company, and that while engaged in fastening a stay or guy wire for that company to the top of one of its poles, without fault on his part, it came in contact with one of the wires of the defendant company, which was heavily charged with electricity, and which was not properly insulated, and that by reason of such defective insulation of the wire of defendant company he received a severe shock, which seriously injured him, and for which he seeks to recover damages herein. Defendant denies all the affirmative allegations of the petition, and alleges that the injuries complained of were caused by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and that without such contributory negligence they would not have occurred. The trial resulted in a verdict for appellee, and appellant prosecutes this appeal, asking a reversal for a number of alleged errors. The proof conduces to show that the wires of the Ohio Valley Telephone Company and those of the Louisville Electric Light Company were both strung along arms which had been nailed to poles on the same side of the street, with the poles of each company alternating; that the wires of the electric light company were put up subsequently to those of the telephone company, and were about 12 or 15 inches lower that appellant was engaged with a force of workmen under a foreman of the telephone company, in passing a guy or stay wire from the top of one of the telephone poles to a stay pole across the street on the opposite side; that this guy wire was necessary to hold the pole in an erect position, as the telephone company had several wires leading from the pole in the opposite direction up an alley; that it was the duty of appellant to fasten his end of the wire to the top of the pole, and the duty of the other workmen to fasten the other end to the guy pole on the opposite side, and that appellant succeeded in getting the wire--which consisted of three strands--in proper position, and had about completed his job when he suddenly received the shock and injuries complained of.

The testimony is not clear as to the precise manner in which this accident occurred, but it is the contention of appellant--and we think the proof conduces to support his contention-- that the guy line came into contact,...