Columbus R. Co v. Dorsey
| Decision Date | 13 January 1904 |
| Citation | 119 Ga. 363,46 S.E. 635 |
| Parties | COLUMBUS R. CO. v. DORSEY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
NEGLIGENCE—ELECTRIC LIGHT WIRE—CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
1. Where a lineman of a telephone company, of experience, aged 19 years, was killed by contact with a wire of an electric lighting company, which had been strung on the poles of the telephone company, and from which wire the insulation had worn off near the pole which he had climbed, and for several feet on each side of the pole—he knowing, or being able to know by ordinary diligence, that the wire was so exposed—his mother cannot recover from the electric lighting company the value of his life.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Columbus; J. L. Willis, Judge.
Action by Susie Dorsey against the Columbus Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
L. P. & Prank Garrard, J. H. Martin, and Cecil Neill, for plaintiff in error.
W. R. Hammond and John D. Little, for defendant in error.
TURNER, J. Mrs. Dorsey brought a suit against the Columbus Railroad Company, a corporation having its principal office in the city of Columbus, alleging that the defendant had injured and damaged her in a large sum. Her petition, as amended at the trial, set forth averments to the following effect: The defendant was the owner of an electric lighting system in the city of Columbus, and was operating an electric lighting plant. In the operation of its business, on a day named, the defendant was engaged in manufacturing and generating currents of electricity, and transmitting them along wires strung upon poles in that city, which currents were of sufficient strength to be dangerous to human life. On said day a son of the plaintiff was in the employ of the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, and was performing the duties of a lineman for said last-named company. As such lineman, he ascended one of the poles of the telephone company for the purpose of performing some duty in connection with the stringing of the wires of that company on said pole, or fastening a crossbeam for said purposes; and while in the performance of his duty he came in contact with one of the wires of the defendant, which was charged with electricity, and, by reason of said contact, received a heavy and dangerous charge of electricity through his body, by means of which he was instantly killed. Plaintiff's son was acting with proper prudence and precaution, and was without fault on his part in coming in contact with said wire. This wire which was charged with the current of electricity which caused his death was the property of the said defendant, and was in use by said defendant at the time in the transmission of one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crosby v. Savannah Elec. & Power Co., 42091
...making line repairs, as in Atlanta Consolidated Street Ry. Co. v. Owings, 97 Ga. 663, 25 S.E. 377, 33 L.R.A. 798; Columbus Railroad Co. v. Dorsey, 119 Ga. 363, 46 S.E. 635; and Trammell v. Columbus Railroad Co., 9 Ga.App. 98, 70 S.E. 892; or for others who may be injured because of lack of ......
-
Ga. Power Co v. Puckett
...Co. v. Puckett, supra. 5. The case under consideration is unlike Zachery v. Madison, 18 Ga. App. 490, 89 S. E. 594; Columbus R. Co. v. Dorsey, 119 Ga. 363, 46 S. E. 635; Dorsey v. Columbus R. Co., 121 Ga. 697, 49 S. E. 698; Culbreath v. M. Kutz Co., 37 Ga. App.-425, 432, 140 S. E. 419. One ......
-
Fitch v. City of Blue Earth
...from being controlling here. The court, in the memorandum, and defendant, in its brief, cite many cases. The cases of Columbus v. Dorsey, 119 Ga. 363, 46 S. E. 635; Cosgrove v. Kennebec L. & H. Co., 98 Me. 473, 57 A. 841, and Hoke v. Edison L. & P. Co., 284 Pa. 112, 130 A. 309, are perhaps ......
- Fitch v. City of Blue Earth, 27742.