Anderson v. Ft. Dodge, D. M. & S. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 39546.,39546. |
| Citation | 226 N.W. 151,208 Iowa 369 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. FT. DODGE, D. M. & S. R. CO. ET AL. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Webster County; H. E. Fry, Judge.
Action by the plaintiff, administrator, to recover damages for the death of decedent, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Ft. Dodge Creamery Company, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the other defendant, and judgment was entered against the plaintiff for costs. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Maurice J. Breen and D. M. Kelleher, both of Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Dyer, Jordan & Dyer, of Boone, for appellee Ft. Dodge, D. M. & S. R. Co.
Price & Burnquist, of Fort Dodge, for appellee Ft. Dodge Creamery Co.
Raymond Anderson, 18 years of age, a clerk in the Boyd Drug Store at Gowrie, met his death on the 19th day of August, 1925, by reason of an electric shock. For some years prior to the date of the death of the boy, the Ft. Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad Company had been supplying the electrical power to Gowrie for lighting and power purposes from its power house at Fraser, over a three phase, 22,000 volt circuit. In about the central portion of the town of Gowrie is a transformer, the purpose of which is to reduce the voltage coming in on the main transmission line from 22,000 volts to 2,300 volts. This latter voltage is communicated by primary wires around the town. There are used secondary transformers, the purpose of which is to reduce the voltage from 2,300 to normal voltage used by consumers of 110-220. At the time of the accident, the drug store was supplied by electrical energy from a transformer located not far distant therefrom. The wiring within the building was such as is ordinarily used for lights and power for motor purposes.
In April, 1925, the Ft. Dodge Creamery Company installed within the building a frigidaire, the ownership of which it retained and received from Boyd a monthly rental for its use. The cabinet was placed near the fountain in the front part of the store and the compressor unit was placed in a nearby closet in the southwest corner of the building. The wiring for the installing of the frigidaire was done by the latter company, by connecting on to the wires which had been previously attached to the ceiling. There was nothing out of the ordinary in this wiring that was done for the installing of the frigidaire. Along the east wall of the closet there was installed a knife switch, which when drawn disconnected the motor from the source of current supply; above this switch there was attached a drop cord at the loose end of which there was the usual appliance for the attachment of an electric light bulb for lighting purposes, and a bulb was attached. This closet was under tbe stairway and had no openings, except the door leading from the drug store. There was located in the closet a carbonator which constituted no part of the frigidaire. The closet was also used as a storage place for cigars; it had a wooden floor and had been covered with tar paper, which was worn out in places. The floor was quite damp or wet, caused by leakage from the tank of the carbonator therein. As hereinbefore stated, the carbonator was no part of the frigidaire which was installed, but was used by the proprietor and his employees for charging soda fountain drinks.
At the time of the boy's death, which was shortly after noon, there was no one in the store, except himself, and the witness, Greenlee. The latter ordered a malted milk, which was mixed by the electric mixer; he was sitting at a table when the boy entered the closet, turned on the light and in some way, not disclosed by the record, let the drop cord fall and broke the bulb upon the floor. He came to another portion of the store, procured another bulb--apparently for the purpose of attaching it to the drop cord--again entered the closet with the door open, and almost immediately called to Greenlee to shut off the juice, that he was getting a shock. Greenlee rushed to his assistance, and found him lying on the floor, face downward, with the cord along his body--and not knowing that the light was attached above the knife switch, pulled the same. He then grabbed hold of Raymond around the chest, and as the result thereof received a shock. He then grabbed the insulated cord and tore it from its attachment, and just about that time the boy exclaimed: “My God, Rus, I am dying.” Greenlee then carried him into the drug store, and, as the witness expresses it: “He was just gasping for breath, you might call it a death gurgle.” An electric fan was used and other efforts made to resuscitate him, but without avail. There was a slight scar or burn in the palm of his hand.
The light in the back room of the drug store was burning all of the time. In the next building east is a printing office, which received its power from the same circuit, and at the time of the accident there was in operation therein a linotype machine operated by the usual voltage of 220, and nothing unusual in connection with said machine was observed. In the adjoining building to the west was a bank, which received its power from the same circuit, and which, when necessary, used two adding machines, an electric fan, and lights, and no trouble with the electrical equipment at any time during the afternoon was observed. There was no disturbance in the meter, the fuse, the lights, the electric milk shaker, or the motor of the frigidaire in the building in question. There is no question that the boy died as the result of an electric shock. There is a variance in the expert testimony as to whether his death was the result of low voltage or high voltage. The foregoing are the more salient facts relative to the death of the boy.
[1][2] At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the court directed a verdict in favor of the Ft. Dodge Creamery Company. There is no evidence in the record that the method of installation of the frigidaire used by the creamery company was not the method usually and ordinarily used for such purpose; no evidence of any defect as to the wiring within the building or in connection with the frigidaire. Relative to the drop cord, Boyd testifies that it was installed by said defendant, but the plaintiff, called as a witness, said defendant's employee, who did the installing, and his testimony was to the effect that the company had nothing to do with the installation of the drop cord. It is apparent that the drop cord is no part of the system required for the operation of the frigidaire. It is also apparent that a light in the closet would be convenient for the use of those in charge of the store at times when the current was disconnected from the frigidaire. This is probably the reason why the connection of the drop cord was placed above the switch by whomsoever it was attached. There is no evidence by which it could be found that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would have acted differently in this respect. Moreover, it cannot be successfully asserted that the failure of the switch to disconnect the current from the drop cord was the proximate cause of the boy's death. There is no causal connection between the two facts. To say that the latter was the result of the former is mere speculation and conjecture. See O'Connor Adm'r v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 129 Iowa, 636, 106 N. W. 161;Rhines v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 75 Iowa, 597, 39 N. W. 912;Wheelan, Trustee, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 85 Iowa, 167, 52 N. W. 119;Asbach v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co., 74 Iowa, 248, 37 N. W. 182. No act of either commission or omission of said company can be successfully asserted as the proximate cause of the boy's death. The record is barren of any evidence of negligence on the part of said defendant, conceding arguendo that it attached the drop cord. The action of the trial court in directing a verdict for said defendant was clearly right.
The appellant's assignments of error relative to the trial as against the Ft. Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad Company relate to the withdrawal from the jury of certain pleaded allegations of negligence, alleged errors in the court's instructions, and claimed erroneous rulings of the court on the introduction of testimony.
The plaintiff, in his petition, alleges against said defendant 13 grounds of negligence, 3 of which we will set out in full, as follows:
“(3) That it was negligence to permit an electric current of a dangerous, deadly, and excessive voltage to pass into the building of the said Boyd Pharmacy. * * *
(6) That no proper ground connection of said system was constructed or maintained and no ground connection was made at or near either of said transformers. * * *
(9) That the wiring, construction, and maintenance of the transformer bank approximately a block north of the Boyd Pharmacy on which the secondary wires leading to the Boyd Pharmacy were connected with said transformer bank was defective in that the secondary wires and primary wires carrying a high and dangerous voltage were in such a position and state of lack of repair that a slight wind, or other atmospheric disturbance, would cause contact between the primary and secondary wires, and at said transformerbank loose ends of wires were permitted to swing unattached whereby the primary current in excess of 2,000 volts could be transmitted to the secondary wiring system entering the Boyd Pharmacy. * * *”
It is not claimed by the appellant that any of the remaining grounds of pleaded negligence should have been submitted.
[3][4][5][6] There is evidence to the effect that the usual and ordinary practice is to put a “ground” either at the transformer or at the particular service, neither of which was done. There is also evidence from which the jury could have found that there was a loose end of wire on one of the poles, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial