Schweitzer's Adm'r v. Citizens' General Electric Co.

Decision Date29 September 1899
Citation52 S.W. 830
PartiesSCHWEITZER'S ADM'R v. CITIZENS' GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. [1]
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county, law and equity division.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by the administrator of John A. Schweitzer against the Citizens' General Electric Company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Pryor Oneal & Pryor, and Kohn, Baird & Spindle, for appellant.

Baker &amp Woods, for appellee.

GUFFY J.

It is alleged in the petition that while decadent was engaged in the prosecution of his lawful and necessary affairs exercising due care for his own safety, in making repairs upon electrical fixtures in a certain building and storeroom occupied by one Swift, the defendant, its agents, servants and employés, by gross carelessness and negligence and wrongful act, allowed, permitted, and suffered a dangerous and powerful current and force of electricity to escape from the wires and conduits of said defendant into said building and storeroom, and to be conducted through and over said building, from which the said decedent was killed. The decedent was not in the employment of defendant. Judgment was prayed for in the sum of $25,000. The first paragraph of the answer is a traverse of the averments of the petition in so far as negligence or wrongful act of defendant is charged. The second paragraph pleads contributory negligence of the deceased. The reply traversed the affirmative allegation of the answer. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant, and, plaintiff's motion for a new trial having been overruled, he prosecutes this appeal.

We deem it unnecessary to notice in detail all the grounds relied on for a new trial.

No witness should have been allowed to give an opinion as to the cause of the injury or the condition of the electrical apparatus, unless he had first shown himself an expert, and also had sufficient knowledge of the facts connected with the appliances used to enable him to form an intelligent and reliable opinion.

Appellant complains of instructions Nos. 4, 5, and 6, which instructions are as follows: "(4) The court instructs the jury that the defendant owed the duty to the plaintiff's intestate to exercise the utmost care and skill which prudent persons would exercise under similar circumstances, in the management and care of its wires, appliances, and electrical currents, so as to prevent the entry into the building where the plaintiff's intestate was killed of any electrical current that was more dangerous than necessary to reasonably conduct its business of lighting said building and operating motor; and the failure to exercise such care is, in law, negligence. (5) By 'negligence' is meant the failure to exercise that degree of care which a person of ordinary care and prudence usually exercises under like or similar circumstances. (6) The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that there was on the morning of the accident, and at the time of the accident, a foreign and dangerous current, without the fault of the defendant company, and that said foreign current caused the death of decedent, the law is for the defendant, and the jury must so find."

It may well be doubted whether there was sufficient evidence, if any, to authorize the giving of instruction 6; and, if there was any evidence tending to show that any foreign current was on the lines, it was error to point out or call attention to such evidence. The reference to such a matter was likely to lead the jury to the conclusion that in the opinion of the court such evidence had been produced, and was entitled to much weight. The defendant could not be held liable unless it was guilty of negligence in some respect, and a general instruction to that effect was sufficient.

Appellant insists...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Beaucond
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 8 Junio 1920
    ... ... 628, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1443; Schweitzer's Adm'r v ... Citizens' Gen. Electric Co., 52 S.W. 830, 21 Ky. Law ... Rep. 608; Macon v ... insulation as was in general use by electrical companies upon ... wires transmitting electricity which ... ...
  • Smith's Adm'x v. Middlesboro Electric Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 26 Marzo 1915
    ... ... citizens, which was situated within their houses or places of ... business. It ... Law Rep. 759, ... nor Schweitzer's Adm'r v. Citizens' General ... Electric Co., 52 S.W. 830, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 608; nor in ... ...
  • Colusa Parrot Mining & Smelting Co. v. Monahan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 25 Mayo 1908
    ... ... the presence of the electric wire on the roof of which he ... complains. The defendant ... In open court Feb. 14th, ... The ... general rule is that an order or judgment dismissing an ... action ... ...
  • Mangan's Adm'r v. Louisville Electric Light Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 27 Marzo 1906
    ... ... Schweitzer's Administrator v. Citizens' General ... Electric Company, 52 S.W. 830, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 608, the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT