Byrd v. Pine Bluff Corporation

• Decision Date: 18 March 1912
• Citation: 145 S.W. 562,102 Ark. 631
• Parties: BYRD v. PINE BLUFF CORPORATION
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

145 S.W. 562

102 Ark. 631

BYRD v. PINE BLUFF CORPORATION

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 18, 1912

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Antonio B. Grace, Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Caldwell & Brockman and Crawford & Hooker, for appellant.

1. The only question is whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the case to the jury on the question of negligence. 63 Ark. 94; 77 Id. 556; 70 Id. 74; 71 Id. 305; 73 Id. 561; 71 Id. 446; 91 Id. 337; 87 Id. 498.

2. Many cases hold it to be the duty of an electric company, before sending its current through an apparatus installed in a building by other parties, to make reasonable inspection to see whether it is fit for use. 71 N.J.L. 430; 58 A. 1082; 31 Cal. 301; 73 P. 39; 59 S.E. 626; 29 Ky. L. Rep. 38; 6 L. R A. (N. S.) 459; 91 S.W. 703; 111 A.D. 353; 98 N.Y.S. 124; 26 R. I. 427; 59 A. 112; 81 Ill.App. 322; 190 Ill. 367; 60 N.E 357; 40 La.Ann. 467; 209 Pa. 571; 18 Col. App. 131; 70 P. 447; 9 Kan.App. 301; 98 N.Y.S. 781. In all these cases and many others the person injured were licensees, but the companies were held to the highest degree of care commensurate with the danger involved. 122 N.W. 199; 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 451.

3. There is a line of decisions that where the inside wiring is done by an independent contract with the owner of the building, and only accepted by him, the company owes no duty, further than not to wantonly or knowingly injure a licensee; but this does not apply where the company sends its employee to work on wires to which it furnishes the electricity. 2 Bailey, Pers. Inj. to Master & Serv., §§ 2561, 2571, 2895; 137 Pa. 148; 45 L. R. A. 267; 16 Id. 43; 190 Mo. 621; 89 S.W. 865.

4. There was evidence of negligence, and it was error to direct a verdict for defendant. 161 Mass. 583; 28 L. R. A. 596; 122 N.W. 499; 46 L. R. A. 745; 164 Mass.; 32 L. R. A. 400; Black, Proof & Pl. in Acc. Cases, § 110 et seq.; 59 Ark. 215; 40 La.Ann. 467; 94 Ark. 566; 135 S.W. 925.

Bridges & Wooldridge, for appellee.

1. Defendant was negligent and assumed the risk. 96 Ark. 500.

2. Where an individual who owns property does his own wiring, or has it done, and the electric company only supplies the current by connection with the wiring already done, responsibility ends when the connection is properly made. 63 P. 949, 951; 16 L. R. A. 43.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

The Pine Bluff Corporation (a private corporation) is engaged in the business of furnishing water, gas and electricity to the people of the city of Pine Bluff, and John Byrd was employed as a workman in the gas and water department. He was killed by an electric shock on account of a wire, of which he had hold and which he was removing from a building, coming in contact with an uninsulated electric light wire, and this is an action against the company to recover damages on account of his death. The trial court instructed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and this appeal raises solely the question whether or not the evidence was sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury.

Byrd was sent by his employer to remove from a store building, then occupied by Stern & Levy, the old gas fixtures and apparatus, the use of which had been discontinued by the occupants. He had with him a helper, who was working under him, and they both were advised of the danger of allowing the wire to come in contact with an electric light wire. After taking down the fixtures inside of the building, it became necessary to remove the small copper wire tubing through which the gas had been supplied. This wire ran along the ceiling of the building between two electric light wires, and came out of the building at the top of a window, and thence to the ground through a three-quarter inch iron pipe. After cutting loose his wire on the inside, Byrd was standing on a box on the outside of the window, drawing the wire through a hole in the window casing, when the end of the wire on the inside of the building fell across an uninsulated electric light wire, and the shock resulted. Byrd cried out in his pain, and his companion came to him and removed the wire, but too late to save his life. The uninsulated part of the electric wire, with which the gas wire came in contact, covered a space of about two inches, and was about a foot from the meter, which was up on the inside of the wall near the top of the window through which the gas wire came, the uninsulated space being between the meter and the ceiling.

It does not appear from the testimony who put in the electric wiring in the building, and there is no evidence that the defendant corporation had anything to do with it. Mr. Levy, the only witness who testified on that subject, stated that the house was wired for electricity before they moved into the building about three years before the accident, and that the electricity had been supplied by another company in Pine Bluff engaged in that business, but the service had been discontinued after the installation of the gas in the building. Later they decided to use electric lights instead of gas, and employed the defendant to furnish electricity and remove the gas fixtures. Some time before this--the exact time is not disclosed--the defendant attached its wires to the wires on the outside of the building and proceeded to furnish electric current. There is no evidence that defendant had anything to do with the installation or maintenance of the wires and appliances on the inside of the building.

The burden was upon the plaintiff to show by competent testimony that the death of Byrd was caused by some negligent act of his employer, the Pine Bluff Corporation. This we think plaintiff has entirely failed to do. The defendant was not responsible for the defective condition of the wires on the inside of the building. It had the right by contract...