Book v. Missouri Public Utilities Co.

Decision Date08 May 1922
Docket NumberNo. 3065.,3065.
Citation242 S.W. 433
PartiesBOOK v. MISSOURI PUBLIC UTILITIES CO.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge,

Action by Pearl A. Book against the Missouri Public Utilities Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Sheppard & Sheppard, of Poplar Bluff, for appellant.

J.L. Fort, of Dexter, and N.A. Mozley, of Popular Bluff, for respondent.

FARRINGTON, C.

The plaintiff, respondent, wife of Fred H. Book, deceased, brings this action against the appellant, charging that her husband's death was caused by the appellant negligently and carelessly permitting its electricity to escape from its wires on the farm upon which the said Fred H. Book was employed, resulting in his death and consequent damages to the plaintiff. The evidence shows that the deceased was the head of a family consisting of a wife and several minor children. The verdict of the jury was for $5,000. The charge in the petition Is general, respondent relying on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine for proof of negligence.

A number of assignments are set forth by the appellant touching the admissibility of evidence, giving of instructions, and finally that the demurrer to the evidence offered by appellant should have been sustained. We have examined the record carefully and have concluded that no harmful error occurred in the admission or exclusion of testimony.

This is a case where the immediate cause of the death of the deceased rests largely upon circumstantial evidence. The admitted facts are that the appellant maintained upon the farm where the deceased worked hightensioned electric wires, charged with a voltage of about 23,000 volts. As we read the record, the evidence is clear that the defendant had taken all proper precaution so far as isolating its wires, and isolation appears to be the only precaution that can be taken with such an amount of voltage, in the carrying of its wires from the public road onto the land to what were known as its transformers, that is to say, the appellant furnished power to run a pump on his farm and carried its electricity on poles to within 25 or 30 feet of the pump house, where it then brought the wires down to three transformers that set on the ground, the purpose of these transformers being to reduce the power from 23,000 to 2,300 volts, and the wires running out from the transformers to the pump house carried a voltage of about 2,300 volts. Around these transformers was built a picket fence some seven feet high, with no opening to get into this pen, and the wires leading down to the transformers were brought down into this pen from a pole in such a manner that in order to come in contact with them a person would have had to lean through and take hold of the wire from the outside, they being brought down on top of the transformers which set in the center of this picket fence pen. It is also shown that the wires leading from the transfermers to the pump house were carried at a reasonably safe distance above head. The deceased's duties were to work on the farm and to go to the pump house and switch on and off the electricity. This was a simple duty, and he had no duties or business connected with the defendant company or that required him in any way to handle or come in contact with the defendant's high-tensioned wires, bringing in the power for the purpose of operating this pump. He was 40 years old, shown to be an intelligent man, and cognizant of the danger of coming in contact with defendant's electrical wires. His duties necessarily led him to and from this pump and by this picket fence pen within which the transformers were located. He was found dead one day, his feet about 18 inches from the north line of this picket fence, near the northwest corner; he was lying on his back, his head to the northwest and his feet to the southeast. There is evidence tending to show that near his right hand, which lay out on the ground, was found a detached wire some three or four feet long covered with some sort of insulation. When he was discovered dead, those who took him home found this wire, and there is testimony that there was a second piece of wire lying on the ground near him. He showed evidence of having been killed by electricity, in that there was a burn in his hand which bore evidence of having been made by the wire which was lying on the ground near his hand, and a burn on his foot or big toe, all clearly evidencing that electricity had passed through his body and that it was electricity which killed him. At least, that is the only reasonable inference that can be deduced from the evidence.

There is evidence in the record that leading down from one of defendant's poles which was set a short distance east of this picket fence pen was a guy wire, and that it came down between two of the high-powered electric wires and was anchored in the ground, and that this guy wire was about 9 feet from where the deceased's body was found dead. There is also testimony that this guy wire was loose, or slack, so slack indeed that it could be pushed either way and come in contact with the two high-tensioned wires between which it ran, so slack that the wind could blow it and make them touch. There is evidence that shortly after the deceased died a horse, while grazing, was seen to walk under this guy wire and receive a shock. This practically is plaintiff's case, so far as the testimony is concerned upon which she relies to have the judgment affirmed.

Appellant's main contention is that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not apply, because on oral argument and in the brief it contends that there is nothing in this case other than the fact that defendant was burned by electricity and dead, and cites cases, such as Pointer v. Mountain Ry. Const. Co., 269 Mo. 104, 189 S. W. 805, L. R. A. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Satterlee v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 17 Abril 1935
    ...342; Glasco, etc., Co. v. Union, etc., Co., 61 S.W.2d 957; Lobach v. Ry. Co., 172 Mo.App. 278; State v. Ellison, 268 Mo. 239; Brooks v. Mo. Pub. Co., 242 S.W. 433; Burtch v. Railroad Co., 236 S.W. 338; Wecker Grafeman-McIntosh Ice Cream Co., 31 S.W.2d 977; Teutenberg v. St. Louis Pub. Serv.......
  • Grzeskoviak v. Union Electric Light & Power Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 8 Junio 1923
    ...... UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER COMPANY Supreme Court of Missouri, First DivisionJune 8, 1923 .           Appeal. from St. Louis ... just as any other fact may be shown by circumstantial. evidence. Book v. Mo. Public Utilities Co., 242 S.W. 433; Burns v. Railroad, 176 Mo.App. ......
  • Miller v. Ralston Purina Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Noviembre 1937
    ...a horse, while grazing was seen to walk under this guy wire and receive a shock. On these facts, the Springfield Court of Appeals (242 S.W. 433) held that a case was made for the jury under the res loquitur rule. Certiorari was granted and the opinion was quashed on the ground, among others......
  • State v. Cox
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 9 Abril 1923
    ...Cox and others, Judges of the Springfield Court of Appeals, to quash a record of the Court of Appeals in the case of Book v. Missouri Public Utilities Company, 242 S. W. 433. Record and judgment of Court of Appeals Sheppard & Sheppard, of Poplar Bluff, for relator. DAVIS, C. The opinion of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT