Brown v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co. of Baltimore City
| Decision Date | 09 January 1900 |
| Citation | 45 A. 182,90 Md. 400 |
| Parties | BROWN v. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore court of common pleas; Henry D. Harlan, Judge.
Action by Philip A. Brown, an infant, by his father and next friend Annanias Brown, against the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Baltimore City. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and SCHMUCKER, PAGE, FOWLER, and BOYD JJ.
William Cotton, for appellant. John P. Poe & Sons, C. Hopewell Warner, and Edgar Allen Poe, for appellee.
The action in this case was brought against the appellee for damages sustained by the equitable appellant from coming in contact with an electric light wire charged with a high-tension current. The evidence introduced by the plaintiff tended to prove the following state of facts: The equitable appellant, who, at the time of receiving the injury complained of, was a boy 11 years old, was employed by one Burt, the proprietor of a store at No. 314 West Pratt street Baltimore, to clean up the store and discharge other minor duties. There was a roof, covering the front window to the store, about 2 feet 6 inches wide, which extended across the entire front of the building just below the second-story window. An open rain spout or gutter ran along the front edge of this roof, and discharged its contents by a down spout attached to the front of the building. The electric light current was introduced to the store by two primary wires extending from a pole, standing some 75 feet easterly from the building, to glass insulators which were attached by iron brackets about 6 inches long to the easternmost end of the small roof of which we have spoken. From the insulators the wires passed into a fuse box, and then into a converter, from which the current was carried by secondary wires into the store. The primary wires from the pole to the converter were charged with a current of 1,000 volts, which is highly dangerous, if not fatal, to the life of any one coming in contact with the naked wire; but the secondary wires extending from the converter into the store, were only charged with the comparatively harmless current of 50 volts. The primary wire from the pole to the insulator nearest the house, and not more than 6 inches from it, was jointed just beyond the insulator, and at the time of the accident the point of the jointed wire was left sticking up and entirely uncovered. The same wire was exposed naked by reason of defective insulation at two other places about 2 or 3 inches beyond the insulator. On June 5, 1897, the equitable appellant, by direction of his employer, went upon the roof which covered the store window, for the purpose of cleaning it and the rain spout attached to it. He was seen by a passer-by on his knees upon the roof, apparently cleaning the gutter; and shortly afterwards he was found lying insensible upon the roof, with his head in contact with the exposed joint in the primary electric light wire, nearest to the house. The flesh of his head was burning at the point of contact with the wire when he was found, and he was otherwise injured by the electric current which passed into his body from the wire. No one witnessed the accident, but the appellant himself testified that he was stooping over the edge of the roof at its eastern end, resting on his left hand, while endeavoring with his right hand to remove a ball which had lodged in the down spout, when his left hand slipped, and he immediately became unconscious. There was also evidence tending to show that the primary wire, which was constantly charged with the deadly current, was not covered with the most approved and effective insulating material, even where it ran in close proximity to the front of the house. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's testimony the court, upon application of the defendant, took the case away from the jury on the ground that there was no legally sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover.
The appellee was engaged in supplying electric light to streets and houses by means of a current of so high voltage that the business in which it was thus engaged was in the highest degree dangerous to all persons liable to come in contact with the wires which carried the current. These wires were strung on poles erected in the streets of a large city, which were likely to...
To continue reading
Request your trial