Chesapeake, Etc., Tel. Co. v. Bullock, Record No. 2748.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2748. |
| Citation | 182 Va. 440 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA v. JAMES S. BULLOCK, ET AL. |
Present, Campbell, C.J., and Hudgins, Gregory, Eggleston and Spratley, JJ.
1. ELECTRICITY — Liability for Injuries — Measure of Care Required. — A company transmitting electricity of high voltage is required to exercise a high degree of care not to injure others.
2. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES — Duties and Liabilities as to Maintenance and Operation — Pole Jointly Occupied. — Where a pole is subject to joint occupancy, each company, in its use of the pole, owes the duty of ordinary care to the employees of the other.
3. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES — Duties and Liabilities as to Maintenance and Operation — Duty to Lineman of Joint User of Pole — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff, a lineman, fell from a pole jointly occupied by his employer and the defendant, plaintiff, while descending the pole, touched with his toe a steel rope or strand which had been strung along the poles for the purpose of supporting a telephone cable. The strand was resting on a bolt attached to the poles but had not been clamped to the poles, and when plaintiff touched it, it rolled off the bolt, throwing him off balance and causing him to fall. The linemen of plaintiff's employer had been cautioned to avoid any equipment or foreign wires that might be on the poles.
Held: That there was no invitation to plaintiff to use the steel strand and defendant owed plaintiff no duty to have the strand fastened to the pole.
4. NEGLIGENCE — Essentials of Liability — Questions of Law and Fact. — In an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to be due to negligence, there are two questions to be determined — first, did the defendant owe the plaintiff a legal duty; and secondly, has the defendant breached that duty. The first question is one of law for the court, and, until it is decided that a legal duty exists, the second question, which is one for the jury, is never reached.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Henrico county. Hon. Julien Gunn, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
John S. Eggleston and William H. King, for the plaintiff in error.
Peyton, Beverley, Scott & Randolph, for the defendants in error.
James S. Bullock, the plaintiff below, an employee of Enterprise Electric Company of Baltimore, fell from a pole which was jointly occupied by that company and the defendant, the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, and was injured. He recovered a verdict and judgment against the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company.
The Enterprise Electric Company will be referred to as "the Electric Company", the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company as "the defendant", and James S. Bullock as "the plaintiff".
The Electric Company, acting under a contract between it and the United States, erected a series of poles, which were owned by the United States, along a roadway at the Army Air Base in Henrico County, Virginia. This company placed on each of the poles cross-arms, and on these they erected high tension wires and other electrical equipment. The United States arranged with the defendant to install a telephone cable on the same poles below the electric system.
The defendant, on the afternoon before the accident, had run a messenger strand for some 4,000 feet along the entire series of poles which had been erected by the Electric Company. The messenger strand is a steel rope which is strung along the poles for the purpose of supporting a lead-covered telephone cable. The cable is attached to and under the strand by wire rings. The strand is affixed to each pole by means of a bolt, and attached by a clamp — the bolt running through the pole. The clamp is to secure the strand permanently to the pole. Before the strand can be clamped to the pole it must be stretched to such an extent that it will properly support the cable. On the afternoon before the accident the defendant had stretched the strand for the entire 4,000 feet, and it rested on the bolts on the poles, but it had not been clamped to the poles.
At about 3:45 P.M. on that afternoon, the working force of the defendant left this particular work and went to another point in the air base to finish up some work there. Quitting time arrived before the workmen could return to their work on the poles, and the messenger strand remained unfastened, resting on the bolts on the poles.
The next morning, sometime after 8:00 o'clock, the plaintiff, who was employed as a lineman for the Electric Company, climbed the pole in question in order to attach a guy wire to properly support the pole. After making the attachment, he descended the pole. He testified that when descending he reached the messenger strand and the toe of his boot hit it and it rolled off the bolt, deflecting the spur of his boot from the pole, throwing him off balance, and causing him to fall. He also testified that if the messenger strand had been permanently fastened and clamped to the pole it would not have rolled off the bolt, the spur would have caught in the pole and he would not have fallen. He said he had been instructed "not to mess with the Telephone Company's wires." The testimony discloses that the linement of the Electric Company had been cautioned to avoid any equipment or foreign wires that might be on the poles.
The allegation of negligence in the notice of motion is as follows:
"I do here allege that the said wire or cable was negligently, carelessly and recklessly owned, constructed and maintained by you and that while I was descending the said pole at the time and place aforesaid, and while I was exercising due care on my part, my foot came in contact with said wire or cable which was negligently, carelessly and recklessly constructed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial