Barto v. Iowa Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1904
• Citation: 126 Iowa 241,101 N.W. 876
• Parties: BARTO v. IOWA TELEPHONE CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

126 Iowa 241

101 N.W. 876

BARTO

v.IOWA TELEPHONE CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 17, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; Geo. W. Wakefield, Judge.

Appeal from judgment for damages caused by a fall from a telephone pole. See 119 Iowa, 179, 93 N. W. 268. Affirmed.A. Van Wagenen, for appellant.

Henderson & Fribourg, for appellee.

LADD, J.

On the 18th day of April, 1901, the plaintiff was employed as lineman by defendant and was engaged in stringing what are called “lead offs,” being connections from the main line of telephone wires to residences or places of business of patrons. After ascertaining the wires with which to connect a laundry near the intersection of Court and Fourth streets he advised the wire chief, and was informed that a certain telephone was connected with a metallic circuit when it should have been a common return. In a metallic circuit two wires run all the way from the telephone to the central office, while in a common return one wire runs from the office to the telephone, and the current travels back over a wire common to several telephones, sometimes called the “McClure” wire. Plaintiff, in proceeding to remedy the defect, climbed the pole on which, about 30 feet from the ground, were two crossbars, and above these a “hickey” had been placed by the Sioux City Electric Light Company. A “hickey” consists of two iron strips fastened to the pole and extending above its end, supporting a crossbar. On this crossbar there were two electric light wires of 110 volts and two primary wires, connecting alternating currents of 1,050 volts each. A wire tapped one of these and ran down to the middle bar, and, after being wound around a peg, onto the fuse box, which was attached to the lower crossbar west of the post, and over the end of a supporting brace extending from the pole to the crossbar. This fuse box was six inches long by three or four inches wide, and is described as “fusible plug down in a receptacle to blow out or melt out in case of a short circuit on the line.” A substance of lower conductivity than the wire is placed in it, and melts when two wires come together. A converter was attached to the north side of the pole, the top of it at the middle of the lower crossbar. This was about 18 inches high and 12 or 15 inches wide. Its purpose was to convert the current from a higher into others of lower voltage. In this instance the current passing into a store near by was reduced to 104 volts. A connecting coil, about 1 1/2 inches in diameter, of wire 3/32 of an inch thick, extended from the fuse box to the converter. Back of this wire was the iron brace previously mentioned, and as the coil was longer than seems to have been necessary it is supposed to have been blown back and forth by the wind against the brace until the insulation wore from the wire. The telephone wires were stretched over the middle and lower crossbars, save the common return, which was attached to a bracket fastened on the east side of the pole at the lower end of the brace supporting the middle crossbar. The plaintiff cut the return wire of the metallic circuit and attached it on the common return, which was on the bracket. He then had hold of the bracket with one hand, and in descending grasped the iron brace of the wire coil connecting the fuse box and the converter, when, as the evidence tended to show, he was struck by a current of electricity and fell to the earth.

1. The hickey, electric light wires, fuse box, and converter were placed on the pole without the defendant's consent, but, as these had remained thereon more than a year, it may well be assumed to have been done with its acquiescence. That they were so placed by another company did not relieve the defendant of its duty to take reasonable precautions for the safety of its employés. Though the lineman is of necessity exposed to unusual dangers, it is the duty of the employer to see that the place where he is to perform his work is, in view of the situation, reasonably safe; that is, shielded from such perils as an ordinarily prudent and skillful man would, under like circumstances, guard against, and it is no excuse to say that an act in violation of this duty was that of another, if with the employer's consent or acquiescence. In other words, the obligation to provide the employé a reasonably safe place to work is an affirmative and continuing duty on the part of the employer. If the defendant chose to allow the electric light company to use its poles, it became its duty to see that these were not so used as to expose the telephone company's employés to perils the risk of which was not assumed in entering such hazardous employment. See McGuire v. Bell Tel. Co., 167 N. Y. 208, 60 N. E. 433, 52...