Brunelle v. Lowell Elec. Light Corp.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1907
• Parties: BRUNELLE v. LOWELL ELECTRIC LIGHT CORP.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

194 Mass. 407

80 N.E. 466

BRUNELLE v. LOWELL ELECTRIC LIGHT CORP.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

February 28, 1907

The ordinance of the city of Lowell referred to in the opinion provided (sections 9, 10, 11, and 14), as follows:

'Sec 9. In no case shall a current of electricity be connected to any system of wiring or apparatus intended to be used for power or lighting without permission being first obtained and a written permit granted by the inspector of wires. The jurisdiction of the inspector is intended to include all public and private electrical systems that are now and may hereafter be installed in the city of Lowell. * * *

'Sec 10. No person or corporation shall change the position or make additions to any wiring system or install any new work or electrical apparatus without first notifying the inspector and he given full opportunity to inspect the same before such work is completed, and when any electric wires designed to carry an electric current or power current are to be concealed the inspector mustbe notified before work is commenced, and he shall give his permission and approval for all such work and connections immediately unless in his judgment such apparatus or wiring endangers life or property or is not in accordance with the laws and ordinances or in conformity with the established insurance rules.

'Sec. 11. The inspector shall require that the established rules and regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters shall be complied with both for outside and interior construction.'

'Sec. 14. Whoever violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this ordinance after being duly notified in writing by the inspector shall forfeit and pay for each offense not less than ten nor more than twenty dollars.'

COUNSEL

John J. & Wm. A. Hogan, for plaintiff.

William H. Bent, for defendant.

OPINION

SHELDON J.

In our opinion, upon the special findings made by the jury, the plaintiff would be entitled to retain his verdict if there was no error in the admission of evidence or in the instructions upon which those findings were made. But we are of opinion that there was such error.

There was, to say the least, evidence upon which the jury might have found that the plaintiff, in putting into his cellar the wire and appliances for a portable light, violated sections 9, 10, and 11 of the ordinances of the city of Lowell, in that he failed to notify the inspector of wires of the intended extension before the work was begun and did not obtain a permit for such extension, and did not comply, in making the extension, with the rules and regulations of the national board of fire underwriters; and that this conduct of the plaintiff was the cause of the accident which happened. In view of the penalty imposed by section 14 of the ordinance, the presiding justice rightly ruled that the plaintiff could not recover if he had thus acted in violation of the ordinance and such violation had contributed to the accident. Brunelle v. Lowell Electric Light Corporation, 188 Mass. 493, 74 N.E. 676. But as bearing upon the latter question he permitted the inspector of wires against the exception of the defendant, to testify that in a case like this, where wires were already installed and there was simply an extension made, it was not his practice to require an application to be made and a written permit obtained before the current was turned on, but to make such requirement only where there was a new installation; that in the majority of cases where the work was exposed, he did not go to examine the premises, but relied on his notice; that if he thought there was any question about the contractor or the premises he would make it his business to get there; that he knew Hinckley, the contractor who did this work, and that he...