Alabama Power Co. v. Farr

• Decision Date: 25 March 1926
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 912
• Citation: 214 Ala. 530,108 So. 373
• Parties: ALABAMA POWER CO. v. FARR.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

108 So. 373

214 Ala. 530

ALABAMA POWER CO. v. FARR.

5 Div. 912

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 25, 1926

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.

Action by J.W. Farr, as administrator of the estate of Agnes Gladys Farr, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J.W Overton, of Wedowee, and Martin, Thompson, Foster & Turner of Birmingham, for appellant.

Vann &amp Parker, of Roanoke, and Barnes & Walker, of Opelika, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The gravamen of the complaint in each of its counts is the negligent failure of the defendant to properly ground, or otherwise safeguard, that section of its wire system by which the plaintiff's residence was served with power for electric lighting, so as to arrest, divert, diffuse, or conduct into the earth excessive and dangerous currents of atmospheric electricity that might be received and carried by the wires during natural atmospheric disturbances.

That the law imposes upon power service companies the duty of "due care in selecting, placing, and maintaining, in connection with its wires and instruments, such known and approved appliances as are necessary to guard against such accidents," is fully supported by reason and authority. Griffith v. N.E. Tel., etc., Co., 72 Vt. 441, 48 A. 643, 52 L.R.A. 919; Columbus R.R. Co. v. Kitchens, 142 Ga. 677, 83 S.E. 529, L.R.A.1915C, 570; S.W. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Abeles, 94 Ark. 254, 126 S.W. 724, 140 Am.St.Rep. 115, 21 Ann.Cas. 1006; So. Tel. Co. v. Evans, 54 Tex.Civ.App. 63, 116 S.W. 418; 9 R.C.L. 1216, § 24; 20 Corp.Jur. 344, § 37, 2, and cases cited. See, also, our own case of So. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. McTyer, 137 Ala. 601, 34 So. 1020, 97 Am.St.Rep. 62, where the basis for this duty, and the resulting liability for its breach, are stated and declared "to be familiar facts in physics, and therefore within the common knowledge of mankind and within the judicial knowledge of courts." In that case it was further said, per McClellan, C.J.:

"If by the exercise of such reasonable precautions as a man of ordinary care and prudence would exercise in respect of such a dangerous agent, injuries to persons and property from the conduction along the wires into houses of currents of atmospheric electricity may be avoided, it is the duty of companies engaged in this business to employ devices and appliances to that end. If the danger cannot be wholly avoided, due care should be taken to minimize it; and if such care is taken and there still inheres in the operation of the system a modicum of unavoidable peril to persons and property, its consequences are to be risked and submitted to in consideration of the conservation of public convenience to which they are necessarily incident."

Under these principles, each count of the complaint sufficiently states the three elements upon which defendant's liability is grounded, viz., a legal duty resting on defendant, the breach of that duty by defendant, and resulting injury to plaintiff.

The objection taken to count 2 is without merit. The contention is that it shows that two sections of wiring were involved the service wires owned and controlled by defendant, and the house wires owned and controlled by plaintiff; and that the allegations of the count do not show that the lethal current passed over defendant's wires, but permit the inference at least that it was inducted into and passed over the house wires only. A fair...