Alabama Power Co. v. Jones
Decision Date | 30 October 1924 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 438. |
Citation | 101 So. 898,212 Ala. 206 |
Parties | ALABAMA POWER CO. v. JONES. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.
Action for damages for wrongful death by Langdon Jones, as administrator of the estate of Ralph Jones, deceased, against the Alabama Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Hood & Murphree, of Gadsden, and Martin, Thompson, Foster & Turner of Birmingham, for appellant.
E. O. McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for appellee.
This action is by appellee as administrator of the estate of Ralph Jones, deceased, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been the result of the wrongful conduct of the defendant. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has prosecuted this appeal.
The question of prime importance, as treated in the oral argument, and also in brief of counsel, relates to the action of the court below in the refusal of the affirmative charge requested by the defendant. Count 11 was the only count upon which plaintiff's case was submitted to the jury, and counsel for defendant insist plaintiff failed to establish the material averments thereof.
A brief reference to the essential features of the evidence is necessary. Plaintiff's intestate was a boy approximately 16 years of age, and had come for a visit to his sister who resided near Gadsden, Ala., on Lookout Mountain, in what is referred to as Bellevue Highlands. On Bellevue Highlands there was an old hotel site, where at one time stood the Bellevue Hotel, long since destroyed. This hotel site is about a mile and a quarter from the city of Gadsden, and elevated about 700 feet. It was uninclosed, but on the south side there was a circular rock wall from about 1/2 to 2 feet wide, and about 3 or 4 feet in height. The hotel grounds sloped upward from the rock wall in the form of a terrace. Just south of this wall and in a few feet thereof was the road, known as the Bellevue Drive, and south of this road was the bluff of the mountain. There were steps leading down this bluff to the city. The road extended along between the foot of the bluff and the wall. The sister of plaintiff's intestate lived a few steps from the hotel site. On the morning of his death her brother, plaintiff's intestate, left her house on his way to Gadsden. He was walking, and the way led across the hotel site. About two hours afterward his dead body was found hanging over the rock wall, which, according to one witness, was at this place about 6 feet from the road above referred to, with his neck across an electric wire, and his left hand on the wire. This wire partially extended over the hotel site and also over the road known as Bellevue Drive.
The witness Ramsey, who seems to have first discovered the body, stated that "the wire the boy was on was about four feet above the road." This roadway had been used by the public for a long number of years, and there was evidence tending to show a number of people visited and passed this place, and that the wire had been down in this condition for several weeks. This wire was uninsulated, or partly so at least, and it is without dispute that there was transmitted over this wire 2,300 volts of electricity generated by the defendant company. This wire extended across the road to a nearby pole, where was attached a transformer, and the current cut down and distributed to consumers on the mountain. One Hart owned and operated a street railway, which ran up this mountain, and near this latter pole was a car shed, where passengers alighted and were taken on the cars. The wire in question ran from the pole near this car shed in a northwesterly direction, toward what is referred to as the Appleton place, then in a southwesterly direction down the mountain side, to a point at Gadsden, about 100 feet east of Twelfth street, and 100 feet north of the Southern Railway to a pole on which had been installed a meter to measure the current of electricity as it passed through said wire up the mountain. There were installed on this pole what are known as cut-out plugs, which, when pulled out of their sockets, disconnected the current. That this wire, in the condition outlined above, was a source of danger to the public, and that so remaining constituted negligence, is not, as we read the briefs of counsel, seriously questioned (Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Word, 200 Ala. 221, 75 So. 979); but counsel for appellant insist the responsibility therefor is not chargeable to it, for the reason that at this latter point, at Gadsden, the defendant company sold and delivered its current to Hart, and that the wires in question belonged to Hart or Hart's company, and were in his possession, custody, and control, and therefore the defendant was not responsible therefor.
The principle of law which defendant seeks to here invoke, established by the great weight of authority, is thus expressed in 20 Corpus Juris, 364:
Among the cases cited by counsel for appellant in support of this insistence, may be noted the following: Fickeisen v. Wheeling Electrical Co., 67 W.Va. 335, 67 S.E. 788, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 893; Pressley v. Bloomington & Normal Ry., etc., Co., 271 Ill. 622, 111 N.E. 511; Hoffman v. Leavenworth Light Co., 91 Kan. 450, 138 P. 632, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 574; Hill v. Pac. Gas Co., 22 Cal.App. 788, 136 P. 492.
Opposing counsel, however, insist there is evidence tending to show the ownership, possession, and control of this wire by the defendant at the time, and that this was therefore a question for the jury's determination; or, if not so owned by it, there was evidence from which the jury could infer the defendant was in possession and control of the wire, and appropriating the same for the purpose of furnishing current within the principle recognized in Fiquett v. Wade Electric Lt. & P. Co., 206 Ala. 630, 91 So. 357. Counsel for plaintiff, however, also rely upon the principle equally well recognized that, whether the defendant owned or controlled the wire or not, if it had notice of its dangerous condition, and continued to supply the current with knowledge that life and limb might be imperiled by reason of such defect, it would be charged with responsibility for the consequences thereof. In 20 Corpus Juris, 365, this rule of law is expressed as follows:
"Whatever the rule may be in this regard, knowledge of the defective and dangerous condition of a customer's appliances will charge even a mere guarantor and supplier of electricity with liability for consequences, where current is thereafter supplied to such defective and dangerous appliances."
In the case of Hoffman v. Leavenworth Light Co., 91 Kan. 450, 138 P. 632, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 574 ( ), the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ellis v. Ashton & St. Anthony Power Co.
... ... Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed ... Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents ... John W ... Jones and Guy Stevens, for Appellants ... A child ... of tender years may be a trespasser and subject to the ... consequences of his trespass, ... 399; Caruso v. Troy Gas Co., supra ; ... Meyer v. Menominee & Marinette Light & Traction Co. , ... 151 Wis. 279, 138 N.W. 1008; Alabama Power Co. v ... Jones (Ala.), 212 Ala. 206, 101 So. 898; ... [238 P. 522] ... Wetherby v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. , 83 Vt ... 189, 21 ... ...
-
Burch v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...R. A. (N. S.) 1046; Fickeisen v. Wheeling Elec. Co., 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 893; Minnesota E. L. & P. Co. v. Hoover, 229 P. 285; Ala. Power Co. v. Jones, 101 So. 898; Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Kelly, 232 P. 428; Waynesboro Mutual Tel. Co., 130 S. E. 232; Martin v. Appalachian E. & P. Co., 153 S.E. 2......
-
Smith v. Southwest Missouri R. Co.
...installation to which it is supplying a deadly current. So. Ry. Co. v. Hobbs, 35 F.2d 298; Aurentz v. Nierman, 131 N.E. 832; Ala. Power Co. v. Jones, 101 So. 898; Hawkins v. Corporation, 126 A. 522; Harn v. Gas Co., 82 So. 199; 20 C. J. 1065. (3) If the power company disclaims possession or......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Emens
... ... switches, fuses and wires," not a breach of the ... contract, but misfeasance in its performance ... proximately resulting in injury to plaintiff. 40 C.J. pp ... 1222, 1223; Mobile Life Insurance Co. v. Randall, 74 ... Ala. 170; Southern Railway Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala ... 437, 31 So. 501 ... The ... contention of appellant is, therefore, without merit ... The ... evidence is without dispute that the defendant is engaged in ... the business of generating and distributing electricity, as a ... public service, and there was ... ...