52 S.W. 830 (Ky.App. 1899), Schweitzer's Adm'r v. Citizens' General Electric Co.
|Citation:||52 S.W. 830|
|Opinion Judge:||GUFFY, J.|
|Party Name:||SCHWEITZER'S ADM'R v. CITIZENS' GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
|Attorney:||Pryor, Oneal & Pryor, and Kohn, Baird & Spindle, for appellant. Baker & Woods, for appellee.|
|Case Date:||September 29, 1899|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Kentucky|
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.
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...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP