Economy Light & Power Co. v. Hiller

• Decision Date: 16 June 1903
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: ECONOMY LIGHT & POWER CO. et al. v. HILLER.

203 Ill. 518

68 N.E. 72

ECONOMY LIGHT & POWER CO. et al.

v.HILLER. ^*

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1903.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Second District.

Action by Charles Hiller, by his next friend, against the Economy Light & Power Company and another. From a judgment of the Appellate Court (106 Ill. App. 306) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Garnsey & Knox, for appellants.

J. W. D'Arcy, for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Appellee, a minor, suing by his next friend, recovered a judgment against appellants, the Economy Light & Power Company, a corporation maintaining poles and wires in the streets of the city of Joliet and furnishing electric light and power, and the Chicago Telephone Company, a corporation also maintaining poles and wires in said streets and furnishing telephone service, the recovery being for injuries received by appellee from contact with a broken telephone wire hanging across an electric light wire. The Appellate Court for the Second District affirmed the judgment, and appellants prosecuted separate appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court.

At the close of the evidence each defendant asked the court to give a peremptory instruction to the jury to find it not guilty. The court refused to give the instructions. It is contended that both instructions ought to have been given, because the injury to the plaintiff was not the result of the joint negligence of the two defendants. The rule is that all persons who join in the commission of a wrong are jointly and severally liable, and the injured party may sue all or any of them. The joint liability in such a case is not of the same nature as a joint liability for the breach of a contract, but, where two or more are sued, the wrong complained of must be joint in its character. One is never liable for the wrong of another, and if their acts are entirely distinct and separate there cannot be joint liability. Yeazel v. Alexander, 58 Ill. 254;Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Scates, 90 Ill. 586;Chicago City Railway Co. v. Rood, 163 Ill. 477, 45 N. E. 238,54 Am. St. Rep. 478. There are some wrongs, like slander, which cannot be joint, but the great majority of torts may be committed jointly, and where different persons owe the same duty, and their acts naturally tend to the same breach of that duty, the wrong may be regarded as joint, and both be held liable. We are of the opinion that the injury in this case was the result of the joint negligence of the two defendants. At the corner of Hickory and Division streets, in the city of Joliet, the wires of the defendant the Economy Light & Power Company cross above the wires of defendant the Chicago Telephone Company. The electric current carried by the telephone wire would not be dangerous, under ordinary conditions, if it was not in contact with any other wire; but if the electric light wire should come in contact with the telephone wire, the result would be to impart to it a current of electricity which would be dangerous. While neither one had any direct control or management of the wires of the other company, it was the duty of each to use proper care to protect the public against the danger of accident from its own wires. Both companies were using electricity, and the current of the Economy Light & Power Company was so powerful as to be dangerous to human life. In case of the use of a highly dangerous agent like electricity, the party using it must exercise such a degree of care as is commensurate with the danger, to prevent injury to the public. Alton Railway & Illuminating Co. v. Foulds, 190 Ill. 367, 60 N. E. 537. The wires of the telephone company were so related to the electric light wires that contact between them would produce dangerous results. At the place where the wires crossed at Hickory and Division streets the insulation of the electric light wires was bad, and in many places was entirely off, or ragged, and hanging from the wire. The telephone wires beneath were not protected in any way from receiving the deadly current if the wires came in contact. The pole on which the electric light wires were suspended was unfit, and not braced as it ought to have been. There had been a guy wire to keep it erect, which was gone, and on the morning of the accident the pole was leaning over at an angle of 45 degrees, letting the electric light wire down to within two or three inches of the telephone wire. There had been a heavy rain storm during the night, and the electric light wires had evidently sagged and come in contact with the telephone wires, with the result that the telephone wire was burned off at some distance from the point of contact, and fell across the electric light wires to the ground. The telephone wires passed through the branches of shade trees, and were not insulated, so that the wire was liable to burn out if it touched the trees carrying the...