City of Jacksonville v. Glover

• Decision Date: 07 June 1915
• Citation: 69 Fla. 701,69 So. 20
• Parties: CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. GLOVER.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

69 So. 20

69 Fla. 701

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. GLOVER.

Florida Supreme Court

June 7, 1915

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Geo. Couper Gibbs, Judge.

Action by Rosa Belle Glover against the City of Jacksonville. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where on the evidence adduced there is room for a difference of opinion between reasonable men as to the existence of facts from which an ultimate fact is sought to be established, or where there is room for such differences as to the inferences which might be drawn from conceded facts, the court should submit the case to the jury for their finding, as it is their conclusion, in such cases, that should prevail, and not primarily the views of the judge.

'Electricity' is an invisible force, highly dangerous in its use, and those who employ others where electricity or other dangerous agencies are used should exercise such care for the safety of the employés as is commensurate with the dangers involved and the competency of the employés.

The judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire cause that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Nor should a judgment be reversed or a new trial granted on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding or that upon the whole evidence the verdict is clearly wrong, or that the jury were not governed by the evidence in making their finding.

Where a person is employed in the presence of a known danger, to constitute contributory negligence it must be shown that the person injured voluntarily and unnecessarily exposed himself to the danger.

Testimony as to a rule at the defendant's electric plant that when a person is sent to work near a wire charged with electricity the current thereon should be cut off was properly admitted in view of the allegations as to the defendant's duty to its employés and in consideration of the circumstances of this dangerous employment.

Where the duty assigned to an employé involves peculiar and exceedingly great dangers from an invisible force, such as uninsulated wires heavily charged with electricity, testimony is admissible as to such dangers which should have been known to the employer.

A directed verdict for the defendant is properly refused when there is ample evidence to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.

COUNSEL P. H. Odom and I. A. Zacharias, both of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Dewell & Triplett and J. E. & Julian Hartridge, all of Jacksonville for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The declaration herein is as follows:

'Whereas the plaintiff, Rosa Belle Glover, is the widow of Edward Glover, and was on the 11th day of November, A. D. 1912, the lawful wife of the said Edward Glover and was supported and maintained by the labor of the said Edward Glover, who, as her husband, was her sole and only support, and the plaintiff was then, and has been ever since her marriage, supported and maintained by the said Edward Glover, and that whereas on the said 11th day of November, A. D. 1912, the said Edward Glover was employed as a laborer, by the city of Jacksonville, a municipal corporation, under the laws of the state of Florida, at a certain electric plant and power house in Duval county, Fla., owned, maintained, operated, and controlled by said city of Jacksonville, and was ordered and sent by defendant to work on the coping around and about the top of the main building of said electric plant of said defendant, and said Edward Glover, in compliance with said order of defendant, went to and on said coping, to perform said work, and it was the duty of the defendant to use due care to provide and maintain, for the said Edward Glover, a safe place to work, suitable warning of the unusual and extraordinary risks, and suitable supervision over the work, yet, notwithstanding the defendant's duty in that behalf, plaintiff avers that defendant negligently and carelessly disregarded its said duties, in that it failed and refused to provide the said Edward Glover a reasonably safe place in which to work, suitable and proper warning of the unusual and extraordinary risks, and proper and suitable supervision over said work, for that the said Edward Glover being then and there at a place where he was ordered sent and required by defendant to work, and that above and about said coping within close proximity were certain electric wires pertaining to the premises and business of said defendant, and known to the defendant, or could have been known by the exercise of reasonable care, that said wires were heavily charged with electricity and were unprotected and unguarded, and that the electric power passing over and through said wires endangered the lives of the persons ordered and sent to work on said coping on said premises, and the plaintiff further says that the defendant knew, or could have known by the exercise of ordinary care, that if said wires should come in contact with any person working on said coping while charged with electricity it would cause death or great bodily injury. And the plaintiff further says that, while the said Edward Glover was attempting to carry out and perform the orders and work of the defendant, his hand and head came in contact with the said wires which were charged with electricity; the fact that the said wires were so charged was unknown to the said Edward Glover, whereby the said Edward Glover received an electric shock and was held fast to said wires until the current of electricity passing over and through said wires was cut off; that then the body of said Edward Glover was caused to fall from said coping to the earth below, a distance of 45 feet, more or less; that from the effects of said electric shock and said fall said Edward Glover died. And the plaintiff says that by reason of the negligence of the defendant in disregarding its duties owed to said Edward Glover, and by reason of negligence and carelessness of the defendant in allowing, permitting, ordering, and sending her said husband to work in an unsafe, dangerous, and hazardous place without warning him of the unusual, extraordinary risk and dangers, and without providing suitable and proper supervision over said work, her

...