Schultz v. Faribault Consol. Gas & Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1900 |
| Citation | 82 Minn. 100,84 N.W. 631 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCHULTZ v. FARIBAULT CONSOL. GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Rice county; Thomas S. Buckham, Judge.
Action by John Schultz against the Faribault Consolidated Gas & Electric Company. Verdict for plaintiff for $7,200, and from the order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries received from electricity caused by a defective system of insulation, held, that the evidence sustains the verdict.
2. Proofs of newly-discovered evidence examined, and held not sufficiently definite and certain to warrant the granting of a new trial.
3. Held, that the verdict was not excessive.
Ansen L. Keyes and Lafayette French, for appellant.
Batchelder & Batchelder, for respondent.
Action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received from electric shocks produced by the negligent construction of defendant's electric light plant. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
Defendant had erected a pole at the edge of the sidewalk and in front of the south line of the opera house on the east side of Main street in the city of Faribault. On the top of this pole was placed an electrical transformer, which received a current of 1,040 volts, and transmitted the same into currents of less power, as required for lighting purposes. There were two clusters of wires, consisting of five each, passing down from the transformer, each cluster entering a gas pipe of about one inch in diameter, which pipes were about ten feet in length, and were attached to the side of the pole, and entered the ground at its base. These pipes were for the protection of the wires. From the base of the pole the pipes containing the wire were continued under the sidewalk into the basement of the opera house, and by this means the house was lighted. There were also two wires running from the transformer to the porch, through which the porch was lighted. On the evening of October 29, 1899, plaintiff drove up close to the sidewalk in front of the opera house with a team of horses and a wagon loaded with flour. Stopping, the wagon stood directly in front of the opera-house door, and the team to the south opposite the south post of the porch, which post stood in the edge of the sidewalk next to the street gutter. Leaving the team unhitched, he went upstairs. Returning, he jumped up on the load by stepping on the hub of the rear wheel, took his position in front, sitting down, picked up the lines, and claims to have immediately received an electric shock which caused him to fall from the load to the sidewalk. Getting up, and noticing that his horses were down, he started to unhitch them, and, passing to their heads, took hold of the bridle bit, and received another shock, which it is claimed caused paralysis of his left arm. In support of its motion for a new trial there are three propositions presented on this appeal by appellant: First, no proof of negligence on part of defendant, and that the verdict was not justified by the evidence; second, newly-discovered evidence material for the defendant, which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial; third, excessive damages, given under the influence of passion and prejudice.
1. The specific act of negligence charged in the complaint is that the electric wires and attachments, which were inteded to convey electricity from the pole to the opera house, were so defective and negligently constructed and arranged that the currents of electricity passed into and along the ground next to the sidewalk to such an extent that plaintiff became injured by coming into contact with the same. The defense is based upon the following propositions, which it is claimed were conclusively established at the trial: First, that the force used through the wires running down the post was only 52 volts, and that such force would not injure a human being; second, that the ground is always neutral, and cannot be charged with electricity to such an extent as to injure any one; thid, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial