Blass v. Virgin Pine Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1931
• Docket Number: No. 6006.,6006.
• Parties: BLASS et al. v. VIRGIN PINE LUMBER CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

50 F.2d 29 (1931)

BLASS et al. v. VIRGIN PINE LUMBER CO.

No. 6006.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 25, 1931.

Sydney C. Mize, of Gulfport, Miss. (Mize & Mize & Thompson, of Gulfport, Miss., and N. T. Currie, of Hattiesburg, Miss., on the brief), for appellants.

R. W. Heidelberg, of Hattiesburg, Miss., Luther L. Tyler, of Picayune, Miss., and J. W. Backstrom, of Leakesville, Miss., for appellee.

Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

Venable Blass, a boy about fourteen years of age, was killed by lightning while alone in the bathroom of a residence in the town or village of Piave, Miss., in which he lived with his parents. To recover damages for his death this action was brought against the appellee, which operated a plant which provided electric light for residences and places of business in that town or village. Allegations of the declaration attributed the death of the deceased to negligence of the appellee in the wiring of the residence, in that there was no ground wire attached to the wire leading into the residence either on the inside or outside thereof, and in that there were no ground transformers or lightning arresters attached to appellee's wires leading from its plant to the place where a wire led from appellee's wire conveying electric current into said residence. Those allegations were put in issue. Upon the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, the appellee.

As to whether appellee's line between its plant and the point from which a wire went into the residence was or was not equipped with sufficient ground transformers or lightning arresters the evidence was in conflict. Uncontroverted evidence showed as follows: The residence mentioned was public school property. It was built by or at the instance of the school board; it was furnished to the deceased's father, a public school teacher, for his use, and appellee did not do, and in no way was responsible for, the wiring of that building or for the maintenance of that wiring, which was installed by or for the contractor who erected the building under a contract with the school board. There were two ways by which electric current might have been conducted into the bathroom or to objects therein, namely, by the wire leading from appellee's line to said residence, or by a cast iron vent pipe, located on the outside of the residence, which went from the west side of the house beneath it and above ground, and extended to the other side of the house, where it entered a cesspool, the bathroom fixtures being connected with that vent pipe before it entered the ground, but having no connection with the light wire. In the wiring of a residence a lightning arrester or ground wire is a needed part of the wiring to carry into the ground lightning that may come over the wire leading to the house. No lightning arrester or ground wire was a part of the wiring of the residence. Immediately after the death of the deceased it was found that the light bulb at the end of the drop cord attached to the wire leading into the residence about the center of the ceiling of the bathroom was bursted. The drop cord itself was not injured, and the use of it was continued after the casualty. The facing of the door leading into the bathroom was loosened, nails being pulled, some enamel was knocked off the wash basin, the base board was bursted, and some of the molding was torn loose. An electrician who was a witness for appellants testified that if lightning had struck wires of appellee and gone into the residence with sufficient force to do the damage which testimony showed had been done, it would have burned up the drop cord, and no sign of the cord would have been left, and that if a stroke of lightning sufficient to tear...