Bland v. Shreveport Belt Railway Company

• Decision Date: 15 June 1896
• Docket Number: 12,178
• Citation: Bland v. Shreveport Belt Railway Company, 20 So. 284, 48 La.Ann. 1057 (La. 1896)
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: D. A. BLAND AND WIFE v. SHREVEPORT BELT RAILWAY COMPANY

20 So. 284

48 La.Ann. 1057

D. A. BLAND AND WIFE v. SHREVEPORT BELT RAILWAY COMPANY

No. 12,178

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 15, 1896

Argued June 4, 1896

APPEAL from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo. Land, J..

Leonard & Randolph, for Plaintiffs, Appellees.

Wise &amp Herndon for Defendants, Appellants.

OPINION

BREAUX J.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for the death of their son Charles M. Bland, aged about twenty-two years and unmarried. He was electrician and lineman; the witnesses state, of the defendant company.

The latter operates a belt line, electric railway, in the city of Shreveport. The electricity is supplied through a trolley wire hanging over the roadbed, by means of suspension wires fastened to poles standing on each side of the road. The height of these poles is about twenty-five or thirty feet and their diameter eight or ten inches. On a straight line these poles are planted at a depth of about five feet, on curves about five feet and a half.

It became necessary to take down a guy wire attached to one of these poles, on a curve.

The superintendent of the company with the lineman, the late Charles Bland, went to the pole to remove the wire. The former suggested to the latter to cut the wire from the tree. "No," was the latter's reply for the reason that "the wire will remain attached to the pole and will be in the way."

The superintendent also offered to climb the pole and himself do the work required. The lineman being more active and nimble went up after the soundness of the pole had been tested. Reaching the point at which the guy wire was attached to the pole he clipped the wire with his pliers; immediately after the pole commenced to give way with the young man and fell on him.

He died about seven hours afterward from the effects of the fall.

It is in evidence that the pole was two feet in the ground; that the ground was wet at the time as it had rained the previous day.

The defendant pleads that the accident was caused by the lineman's want of care and caution; that he was aware of the danger of the employment.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs in the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars. After an ineffectual attempt to obtain a new trial from the verdict, the defendant appeals from the judgment.

Before the guy wire was removed the offending pole was safe; it remains, none the less, that without this wire it was entirely unsafe. We have seen that moving the wire was a necessity, rendered so by the fact that the guy tree was on the right of way of another railroad. The removal was ordered by the defendant company, under whose order the two, its superintendent and lineman, acted. The company's order was to take down the wire and take it out of the way.

It is well settled in order to support an action for personal injuries two things must concur, the want of proper care and caution on the part of the defendant and no fault on the part of the plaintiff.

If the defendant was notified of the vice of construction at the place the accident occurred and failed to make needful repairs within a reasonable time, it became responsible for injuries resulting from the fall of the pole.

It is but fair to the present management to state that it does not appear of record that they had any knowledge of the defect. It is in evidence, however, that in 1893 the one who was lineman of the company, reported to the superintendent that this pole was weak, threatening and that it needed resetting.

These employees are no longer in the service of the company.

The corporation itself has not changed, and it is bound by the knowledge of its employees, at the time, had. Notice to the agent was notice to the principal. We are informed by the testimony of the witness Huddleston, that the superintendent's reply was (when he was notified) that the pole would be reset later, in dry weather; it was in wet weather that he gave the information and was directed to attach the guy wire. If this witness stated correctly, and we have no reason to think that he has not, the resetting should not have been indefinitely postponed as it was.

Having reached this conclusion in regard to the defendant, we are brought to the plea of contributory negligence urged by the defendant against any right of plaintiffs to recover damages.

The inquiry here is whether the danger was concealed or the surrounding condition of things such, as to warn the lineman who was injured?

The proposition does not admit of discussion; that while it is the general duty of a master to exercise needful care and caution to prevent the exposure of his employee to great risks, the employee on the other hand must exercise ordinary diligence in guarding against injuries.

The guy wire was one hundred and twenty feet in length from the top of the pole, where...