Chisholm v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1900 |
| Citation | 57 N.E. 383,176 Mass. 125 |
| Parties | CHISHOLM v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. W. Corcoran and W. B. Sullivan, for plaintiff.
J Lowell and J. Lowell, Jr., for defendant.
This is an action brought under St. 1887, c. 270, to recover for the death of the plaintiff's husband. The deceased was a lineman in the defendant's employ, and was engaged in suspending a cable of the defendant from a taut wire, when his feet came in contact with an exposed and highly-charged wire of another company which had its wires upon the same poles, and he was killed by the shock. The action is based upon the alleged negligence of the person exercising superintendence.
The deceased was in a boatswain's chair suspended from the taut wire, and a fellow workman drew him along as he fastened the cable. These two were left to do the work themselves, under the charge of a foreman who was standing near the man on the ground. They had worked along from three to four hundred feet from the place at which they were set to work, when they came to a tree, and the accident was due to the insulation of the wire above mentioned having been worn off by contact with the tree. The tree had been burned by the electricity, but the deceased was not likely to see the marks when engaged upon his work, and we assume that the evidence might have been taken to mean that he could not have seen them if he had looked. We assume, also, that the foreman could have seen them from some points on the ground, although a fair interpretation of the evidence leaves it doubtful whether the marks were more visible from the ground than from the boatswain's chair. Twigs and foliage had grown from the tree in such a way as to hide them. There was no evidence that the foreman actually knew of the defect or of the marks which might have given warning of it. The judge before whom the case was tried directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted.
We are of opinion that the direction was right. It was a standing order of the defendant's that linemen should examine poles before ascending them. The danger from an imperfectly insulated wire is the most characteristic risk which a lineman has to encounter. That general risk the deceased assumed by entering upon his employment. Everybody knows that there always is a chance that the insulation of a wire may become worn...
To continue reading
Request your trial