Alabama Power Co. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 16 October 1930
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 632.
• Citation: 130 So. 788,222 Ala. 75
• Parties: ALABAMA POWER CO. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

130 So. 788

222 Ala. 75

ALABAMA POWER CO. v. WILLIAMS.

6 Div. 632.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 16, 1930

Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.

Action under homicide statute by Mozella Williams, as administratrix of the estate of J. P. Williams, deceased, against the Alabama Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The refusal of requested instructions covered by those given is not error.

Count 1 of the complaint is as follows:

"The plaintiff who sues as administratrix of the estate of J. P Williams, deceased, claims of the defendant corporation the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) as damages for that heretofore on, to-wit, the 26th day of May, 1929, the defendant was engaged in furnishing electric power to the citizens of Nauvoo, Walker County, Alabama, and adjoining territory; that on, to-wit, said date, plaintiff's intestate was a customer of the defendant and was supplied by its electric current for lighting his residence off of a system of overhead wires strung on poles along the streets and public roads, and from said poles into residences of Nauvoo and into the residence of plaintiff and plaintiff's intestate; that the said residences, and for the purpose of turning on lights, were supplied with switches which were used in turning on the electric current to cause lights to be in the sockets that were placed at the ends of said wires and at the end of which were attached incandescent globes; that the said wires as used by the defendant corporation were among the best known conductors of electricity and during thunder storms are exceedingly dangerous and are likely to cause death or bodily harm or injury to persons at or near the said switches and globes, unless the said wires are properly insulated and safeguarded by ground wires, lightning arresters or other safety appliances.

"Plaintiff alleges that on, to-wit, said date, a slight electric storm occurred of such severity as usually occurs in the locality of the residence of plaintiff's intestate at that season of the year; that at said time plaintiff's intestate, who was plaintiff's husband, was in his said home and was sitting at the supper table in a room in his said home and in plaintiff's said home at or near one of the said switches and near to a socket suspended from the ceiling of the room by wires and connected with defendant's wires as indicated; and while so sitting as aforesaid, plaintiff's intestate was struck with great force and violence by a bolt of lightning or atmospheric electricity which came over defendant's wires from the outer air, and which was hurled against and through the body of plaintiff's intestate from, by and through said wires of defendant and from or near said switch and socket, whereby and as a proximate consequence plaintiff's intestate was killed.

"Plaintiff alleges that her said intestate's death was proximately caused by the negligence of the defendants, agents, servants or employes, and while acting within the line of their duty and the scope of their authority as such, in that said agents, servants or employes negligently failed to properly insulate or safeguard its said wires by the use of proper and necessary appliances for arresting, diverting, diffusing or conducting to the earth the excessive and dangerous current of electricity which struck by lightning, which the said wires in their condition and position would naturally attract under such conditions."

Count 2 adopts all of count 1 down to the last paragraph, and adds the following:

"And plaintiff alleges that it was the duty of the defendant to use due care to prevent injury to plaintiff's intestate from the conduction along the said wires into the house of plaintiff's intestate of currents of atmospheric electricity by properly insulating and safeguarding the said wires by the use of proper and necessary appliances for arresting, diverting, diffusing, or conducting to the earth the excessive and dangerous current of atmospheric electricity, which the condition and position of said wires would naturally attract under such conditions.

"Plaintiff alleges that the defendant's agents, servants or employees, and while acting within the line of their duty and the scope of their authority and in charge of said work, negligently failed to use due care to prevent injury to plaintiff's intestate from the conduction along the said wires into the house of plaintiff's intestate of currents of atmospheric electricity by properly insulating and safeguarding the said wires by the use of proper and necessary appliances for arresting, diverting, diffusing or conducting to the earth the excessive and dangerous current of atmospheric electricity which the condition and position of said wires would naturally attract under such conditions, and as a proximate consequence of said negligence of defendant's said agents, servants or employees, plaintiff's said intestate was killed."

Grounds 12 and 13 of the demurrer are as follows:

"12. For that the averment that the defendants 'failed to properly insulate or guard its said wires by the use of proper and necessary appliances, etc.' is insufficient in law in that the defendant is liable only for a failure to use...