City of Sandersville v. Moye
| Decision Date | 11 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | 10917. |
| Citation | 102 S.E. 552,25 Ga.App. 64 |
| Parties | CITY OF SANDERSVILLE v. MOYE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The petition as amended set out a cause of action, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the general and special demurrers.
The excerpts from the charge of the court which are complained of contain correct statements of law applicable to the case; and if any further or additional instructions were desired, the trial judge should have been presented with appropriate written requests so to charge.
The failure of the court to give certain instructions to the jury, as complained of in the motion for a new trial, is not cause for a new trial, as there was no appropriate written request for such instructions, and in the charge of the court all the substantial issues in the case were fully and fairly submitted to the jury, with the law applicable thereto.
The court did not err in admitting the testimony of W. M Goodman, counsel for the defendant, and in permitting counsel for the plaintiff to examine into the qualifications of jurors about to try the case. The note of the judge in approving the motion for a new trial clearly and fully explains the matter and shows that upon an examination as to the qualifications of the jurors, some of them were found to be disqualified.
The evidence, while conflicting, was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Where a city had actual notice of the defective condition of an electric light post located on the premises of a public school where children were continually at play, the law required it to cease sending current through the wires attached to the post until it was repaired.
Persons or companies operating telephones and electric light systems for the transmission of electricity upon and over public highways owe to the public the duty of properly constructing and maintaining their wires and poles, and they are bound to provide such safeguards against danger as are best known and most extensively used, and all necessary precaution to avoid casualties which may be reasonably expected.
A city using a public highway for electric wires carrying a powerful and dangerous current must use a "very high degree" of care in the construction, use, and repair of an electric light post to which they were attached.
Error from City Court of Sandersville; E. W. Jordan, Judge.
Action by S. M. Moye against the City of Sandersville. Judgment for plaintiff, motion for new trial denied, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Where the court properly charges the jury, so far as it goes, a party, if he wishes more specific instructions, should ask for them at the trial.
W. M. Goodwin, J. E. Hyman, and Rawlings & Wood, all of Sandersville, for plaintiff in error.
A. R. Wright and J. J. Harris, both of Sandersville, for defendant in error.
S. M. Moye brought suit against the city of Sandersville to recover damages for the homicide of his minor son, alleging that the deceased, while riding a bicycle upon one of the sidewalks of said municipality, came to his death by reason of coming in contact with an electric light post, commonly known as a "white way" post, which post was located at the entrance of the public school grounds, immediately adjacent to the sidewalk, and that it was an improper instrumentality to support electric wires charged with approximately 2,300 volts; that the wires were insufficiently insulated, the insulation thereon being old and worn, and inadequate to prevent the passage of the dangerous current therefrom in the event any person or thing came in contact therewith; that the defendant was negligent in stringing along the public highway, and over grounds where the public was invited to be, at a height of between 10 and 11 feet only, wires charged with such a highly dangerous current of electricity; that the defendant continued to use this post for the purposes above enumerated notwithstanding it had knowledge of the improper construction and maintenance thereof, and that the post was likely to become charged with the high voltage referred to; that the defendant permitted a "ground" to continue in its system an unreasonable length of time without detecting or curing the same; and that it was also negligent in failing and refusing to cut off its current for an unreasonable length of time after notice that the deceased was in contact therewith. We will briefly state the evidence supporting each of these several alleged acts of negligence and the law applicable thereto.
The following evidence will suffice to indicate whether or not the defendant had knowledge of the defective condition of the post:
Another witness testified to the same effect and import in the following language:
"My understanding is that he [Mr. Porter] reported we had a post there charged with electricity at the time, and that it was dangerous."
Still another witness testified that he erected the post, and at the time it was being put up he protested to Mr. Porter against the manner in which it was erected and told him that it was dangerous. Having, therefore, actual knowledge of the defective condition of this post, which was located on the premises of a public school, a place where children were continually at play, the law required the defendant to cease sending its current through the wires strung thereto until the same was repaired. Atlanta Con. St. Ry. Co. v. Owings, 97 Ga. 663, 25 S.E. 377 (1), 33 L.R.A. 798.
The allegation that the wires attached to the defective post conveyed an unnecessarily high and dangerous electric current, and that an innocuous current could have been used, was supported by the evidence of the witnesses Harrison and Eager.
The latter testified:
"There is no danger in 110 voltage unless some other contact is made."
This statement was corroborated by another witness, an electrical engineer, who testified that a current of 110 volts was harmless. The defendant company having elected to use an extremely powerful and dangerous and unnecessary current, it should have used a "transformer," or other known and approved appliance, to reduce the current to a safe...
To continue reading
Request your trial