Colorado Elec. Co. v. Lubbers

Decision Date16 October 1888
Citation11 Colo. 505,19 P. 479
PartiesCOLORADO ELECTRIC CO. v. LUBBERS.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.

Charles Lubbers, the appellee, brought this action against the appellant, the Colorado Electric Company, a corporation, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of the negligence of said company, and obtained a judgment for $5,500 damages, and costs of suit from which the appeal herein was taken. The answer denies the allegations of the complaint in the main, and charges the plaintiff with contributory negligence. At the time of the alleged injuries, to-wit, in December, 1881, the defendant was engaged in supplying lights to the city of Denver and its inhabitants, by means of an electric fluid, generated by it in said city, and conveyed from its works, by elevated wires to lamps, located in different parts of the city, used as burners. The plaintiff was in its employ. The evidence tends to show that he hired to it as a carpenter, to assist in taking care of its electric-light towers; that at half past 3 o'clock, in the afternoon of December 17, 1881, he was sent by the superintendent of the company, from its works in said city, to remove one of these lamps, connect the wires with the circuit, and return with the lamp to the works; that at that season of the year the usual time for turning on the electric current was from 30 to 45 minutes after 4 o'clock of each day,--the earlier period being used for dark or cloudy days, and the later for clear days; that the day in question was a clear day; that it was dangerous to handle the wires when charged with electricity; that the plaintiff was inexperienced in the work he was so ordered to do on that occasion, and that it was outside of the duties of his employment; that he was sent, from the works to the lamp on foot, and the distance, as variously estimated by the witnesses, was from one and a fourth to two miles; that, with ordinary speed, from 35 to 50 minutes were required or would be consumed in going on foot from the works to the lamp removing it from its place, and connecting the wires; that he proceeded at a 'good gait, pretty fast,' and was not delayed on the way, or in the performance of the work; that before starting on such errand the superintendent informed him that he would have time to do it before the electric current was turned on; that after taking down the lamp, and while engaged in connecting the wires, the electric current was turned on, and he was thereby shocked, and fell to the ground or pavement beneath, a distance of about 12 feet; that by means of the shock and fall he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Georgia Southern & F. Ry. Co. v. Cartledge
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • August 7, 1902
    ... ... negligence." We may also point to the fate which befell ... an early Colorado case (Railway Co. v. Miller, 2 ... Colo. 442), the ruling in which is no longer given ... tion by the courts of that state. Electric Co. v ... Lubbers, 11 Colo. 505, 19 P. 479, 7 Am.St.Rep. 255; ... Railroad Co. v. Morton, 3 Colo. App. 155, 32 P ... ...
  • Diamond Rubber Co. v. Harryman
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1907
    ... ... not admissible for the purpose of establishing negligence ... Colo. Electric Co. v. Lubbers, 11 Colo. 505, 19 P. 479, 7 ... Am.St.Rep. 255; Anson v. Evans, 19 Colo. 274, 35 P. 47; ... ...
  • Southern Pac. Co. v. Hall
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 5, 1900
    ... ... Co. v. Clem, 123 Ind. 15, 17, 23 N.E. 965, 7 L.R.A. 588; ... Electric Co. v. Lubbers, 11 Colo. 505, 508, 19 P ... 479; Green v. Water Co. (Wis.) 77 N.W. 722, 726; ... Giffen v ... ...
  • Olympia Mining Co. v. Kerns
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1907
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Rule 407: the Other Purposes for Introducing Subsequent Remedial Measures
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 28-5, May 1999
    • Invalid date
    ...of Subsequent Remedial Measures in Strict Liability Cases," 28 The Colorado Lawyer 47 (Jan. 1999). 2. See Colorado Elec. Co. v. Lubbers, 11 Colo. 505, 119 P. 479 (1888). 3. See Herndon v. Piper Aircraft, 716 F.2d 1322 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied sub. nom., Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Seven B......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT