Card v. Wenatchee Valley Gas & Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 January 1914
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CARD et al. v. WENATCHEE VALLEY GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

137 P. 1047

77 Wash. 564

CARD et al. v. WENATCHEE VALLEY GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 24, 1914

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; William A Grimshaw, Judge.

Action by Ida B. Card and another against the Wenatchee Valley Gas &amp Electric Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Reeves, Crollard & Reeves, of Wenatchee, for appellant.

Frank A. Steele, of Seattle, and Fred Kemp, of Wenatchee, for respondents.

PARKER J.

This action was prosecuted in the superior court for Chelan county by the widow and minor child of James W. Card, to recover damages which they allege resulted to them from his death caused by the defendant's negligent manner of maintaining its electric power transmission line. A trial before the court and a jury resulted in verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, from which the defendant has appealed.

The contentions of counsel for appellant all go to their claim that the trial court erred in refusing to take the case from the jury and decide it in appellant's favor as a matter of law, it being claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support any finding of negligence on the part of the appellant, and also that the evidence conclusively showed that deceased met his death as the result of his own negligence. The facts are not seriously in dispute, the real contentions having to do with the question of what conclusions reasonable minds might draw from the facts as to the negligence of appellant and deceased.

James W. Card, at the time of his decease, owned and occupied with his family a small farm fronting upon a main traveled road in Chelan county. Appellant maintained along this road a high power electric transmission line, consisting of poles supporting wires. The lower wire of this line was uninsulated, carried 16,500 volts, and was suspended from the ends of cross-arms which projected over the line of the highway some two feet, so that it was directly over the land of deceased, and within 17 feet of the ground. The land of deceased, like all other land in that neighborhood, was farmed by irrigation. It was customary for the farmers to carry water for irrigation on and across their land to a considerable extent in iron pipes as well as in open ditches and wooden flumes. The pipes varied in length from 10 to 20 feet. Some of the iron pipes were made of light, galvanized iron, and some of the heavier wrought iron. On April 23, 1912, deceased was working upon his land near the highway, directly under appellant's transmission line, on one of his lateral flumes. He had a length of wrought iron pipe about 20 feet long and 2 1/2 inches in diameter from the inside of which he was trying to remove a piece of wood. In his efforts to do so, he raised the pipe on end, and proceeded to raise and let it down upon the boards of the flume with a view to jarring the wood out of it. The pipe then came in contact with the wire of appellant's transmission line which was directly over his head. The pipe coming in contact with the wire, when raised off the ground while held by deceased in his hands, caused a ground connection of the electric current through his body, and he was thereby instantly killed. Deceased had lived on this land for about three years, during which time appellant's transmission line had been there over his land. He knew of its presence, but there is no evidence that he knew of the extreme high power of the current, nor of its deadly effect to one coming in contact with it. There was evidence tending to show that he knew that a neighbor boy had received a shock from throwing a long piece of sea kelp over the wire, while playing with the kelp as he would with a long whip, but apparently the shock then received by the boy was not serious. There was introduced testimony of experienced electrical engineers touching the proper height at which wires carrying powerful electric current should be suspended above the ground. This evidence was such as to fully warrant the jury in believing that for a proper degree of safety a transmission wire carrying 10,000 volts or more should be, in no event, less than 25 feet from the ground, and that the usual construction regarded proper by engineers would suspend a wire carrying 10,000 or more volts about 45 feet above the ground. Appellant had a franchise for the maintenance of its transmission line along this road, but had no right to suspend any of its wires over the land of deceased. It is conceded that the 16,500 volts carried by the wire which was suspended over respondents' land was highly dangerous; in fact deadly in its effect should any one come in contact with it, either directly or through any medium which would cause the current to pass through the body of such person.

It is first argued that the evidence failed to show negligence on the part of appellant in the maintenance of its transmission line in the manner and location shown. It seems to us the degree of care required by the law from appellant in the handling of this highly dangerous agency must be considered in connection with the question...