Clonts v. Laclede Gas Light Company
| Decision Date | 06 June 1910 |
| Citation | 129 S.W. 238,144 Mo.App. 582 |
| Parties | BEULAH CLONTS et al., Respondents, v. LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Charles Claflin Allen, Judge.
Judgment reversed.
Percy Werner for appellant.
(1) Clonts did not receive the fatal shock from electricity which defendant had negligently or otherwise permitted at all times to pervade its premises, but from the invasion of foreign electricity. The shock was due to a cause of which defendant had no knowledge and over which it had no control. The case is one, not of variance, but of a total failure of proof. R S. 1899, secs. 655, 798; Hogan v. Railway, 150 Mo 36; Chitty v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 75; Harper v Railroad, 44 Mo. 488; Current v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 66; Bohn v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 429; Kaw Co. v. Railroad, 129 Mo.App. 502; Breen v. Cooperage Co., 50 Mo.App. 212; Brown v. Hershey Co., 65 Mo.App. 166; Miller v. Clark, 78 Mo.App. 447. (2) The shock which killed Clonts followed immediately upon the act of the employes of the Union Company in bringing its heavily charged wire in contact with the light voltage wire of the defendant. The law is that defendant must have a reasonable time after the dangerous act is committed in which to discover it and obviate its consequences. Lampert v. Gas Light Co., 14 Mo.App. 397; Frauenthal v. Light Co., 67 Mo.App. 8; Abbott v. Mining Co., 112 Mo.App. 556; Dodge v. Coal Co., 115 Mo.App. 507; Hach v. Railroad, 117 Mo.App. 15; Kelley v. Railroad, 105 Mo.App. 376.
E. C. Crow, Guy E. Golterman and Jeffries & Corum for respondents.
Defendant, in the conduct of its business, was utilizing one of the most, if not the most, dangerous agencies known to science--electricity. It was, therefore, incumbent on it to exercise an extraordinarily high degree of care to protect its servants from the consequence of contact with that element. It was defendant's duty to exercise such care as was commensurate with the danger. Curtis v. McNair, 173 Mo. 280; Paden v. Van Blarcum, 181 Mo. 117; Winkleman v. Light Co., 110 Mo.App. 189; Geisman v. Electric Co., 173 Mo. 654.
--This was an action brought by the minor children of S. C. Clonts for damages for his death while employed by the appellant in operating an electric elevator. Judgment in the trial court was for the respondents in the sum of five thousand dollars, and the case is here on defendant's appeal.
The appellant company maintained a building at the corner of Convent and Second streets in the city of St. Louis known as Station A. It was used for generating and storing fuel and illuminating gas. This building was equipped with an electric elevator. Clonts, the deceased, was in the employ of the appellant as a laborer at this building, and it was a part of his duty to use the electric elevator in conveying materials from different parts of the building. In order to operate the elevator, it was necessary to grasp with the hand an uninsulated iron tiller rope which constituted a part of the equipment of the elevator. The motive power was, of course, electricity, and was supplied by one of defendant's wires carrying a 500 voltage which was a direct current generated in the same building and not an alternating current. This 500 volt circuit was the only electric wire that ran into Station A.
On the morning of the 6th of September, 1905, at 11:15 o'clock, while the said Clonts was in the line of his duty operating this elevator by grasping the iron tiller rope with his hand, he received from such wire rope into his body a powerful current of electricity which caused his instant death.
At that date, the Union Electric Light & Power Company of St. Louis, another corporation, maintained poles and wires at the corner of Finney and Taylor avenues in the city of St. Louis, some four or five miles from where the deceased was killed. The Union Company's wires carried a voltage of 2300 and with an alternating current. The 500 volt wire which operated the elevator at Station A also extended to the crossing of Finney and Taylor avenues. The poles and wires of the Union Company which carried the 2300 voltage ran east and west along Finney avenue and across Taylor avenue. The 500 volt wire of the appellant was strung north and south along Taylor avenue, crossing above the high voltage wire of the Union Company. The wires of the Union Company were strung at a later date than that of the defendant, and, in order to avoid contact at the point of crossing, the wires of the Union Company were allowed by such company to sag some fifteen or eighteen inches below the said wire of the defendant. At the hour of Clont's death, the employees of the Union Company were at work on the poles and wires of said company at the corner of Finney and Taylor avenues for some reason repairing the Union Company's line. By putting a strain on the pole at that point and suddenly pulling it back, a guy wire was tightened in such a manner as to raise the Union Company's high voltage wire until it came in contact with the wire of the defendant. The immediate effect of the contact of the two wires was to burn the insulation off of both and charge both wires with the same voltage. The high voltage of the Union Company's wire sought an outlet on the lighter wire of the defendant, ran instantaneously along that wire and entered the building in which Clonts was operating the electric elevator, burning out the insulation in the elevator and running along the wire tiller rope by which the elevator was being operated by Clonts, so that Clonts who had hold of the iron tiller rope received the 2000 or 2300 volts of electricity, causing his instant death.
The evidence was unquestioned that the wire of the defendant at the crossing of Finney and Taylor avenues at the place where the contact took place was properly insulated. There was no evidence that there had ever been any trouble at that point by reason of the two wires coming in contact prior to the fatal accident. There is no evidence in this record to show that this defendant had any notice whatever or any knowledge that the work was to be carried on by the employees of the Union Company on their line at the point where the actual contact took place; nor is there any evidence to show that if they had known the fact that said employees of said company were engaged on its line at said point, they could have anticipated that said employees would bring the wires of the two companies into contact. The evidence is that Clonts was killed at the electric elevator on September 6, 1905, at 11:15 o'clock. The automatic apparatus and indicator in the office of the Union Company and its records showed that notice was received at such office on that date at 11:13 a. m., the indicator showing that the ground trouble was in the locality of Finney and Taylor avenues. The operator of the electric wire system of the defendant at Station A had his attention called to the unusual condition of its wire by an unusual flash of light caused by the high tension current on its line. This he observed and recorded the hour at the time and it was 11:15 a. m. by his clock, the precise moment at which the evidence shows Clonts was killed. W. J. O'Brien testified that he was working for the defendant at Station A and remembered the accident. He said: "I made a report of the death of Clonts; it occurred at 11:15 a. m."
The evidence was conflicting as to whether the elevator which the deceased was operating was properly constructed and insulated. The evidence of the respondents tended to show that frequently electricity was in the iron tiller rope before the accident; that electricity frequently leaked through into the tiller rope from the 500 volt wire that operated the elevator, but that it was generally in harmless quantities, and it was not shown that this electricity had ever been dangerous, although the elevator had been in operation for over two years prior to the accident. There was some evidence that on the morning after the accident, the tiller rope was charged with electricity that did not come from the 500 volt wire. The evidence tended to show that the elevator was frequently out of order and defective in its electrical and mechanical construction. There was no evidence that by the use of vulcanized fiber or the use of other insulating materials, a current of 2000 or 2300 volts would have been resisted. Some statements were made to the effect that vulcanized fiber is sometimes used for insulating purposes. The evidence further shows that 500 volt electric elevators were never equipped with any insulation or safe-guard against outside high potentials carrying 2000 or 2300 volts, and that there is no known insulation or protection which which a 500 volt electric elevator could be equipped which would withstand a 2000 or 2300 voltage on its wires; that electric elevators are not built to carry that voltage and that if that voltage should come in on them at any time, it would burn up the machine; that elevator machines are not insulated for any voltage over 500.
In this connection, respondents offered Thomas B. Carter as a witness. He stated that he was in the city lighting department and supervisor of the city lighting for St. Louis and had held the place...
To continue reading
Request your trial