Cox v. WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE ELEC. ASS'N
| Decision Date | 16 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41063.,41063. |
| Citation | 161 N.W.2d 294 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles COX and Grace Cox, Appellants, v. WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION and Frank Thies and Elmer Thies, Respondents. |
William E. Crowder, Gerald H. Hanratty and Clarence O. Johnson, Minneapolis, for appellants.
Meagher, Geer, Markham & Anderson, and O. C. Adamson, II, Minneapolis, for Wright-Henn. Co-op. Elec. Assn.
Stringer, Donnelly & Sharood, St. Paul, for Frank Thies.
Drake & Drake and John Simpson, Minneapolis, for Elmer Thies.
Appeal from a judgment of the district court.
Charles Cox sustained personal injuries on December 2, 1962, when a 30-foot red cedar pole, installed in a farmyard, broke while he was working on it, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain personal injuries on account of which the present action was instituted by Cox and his wife. The complaint filed initially charged negligence on the part of Page & Hill, Inc., supplier of the pole, but plaintiffs' cause of action as against this defendant was dismissed prior to trial. The complaint also charged that defendant Wright-Hennepin Co-operative Electric Association, which supplies the electricity to the premises where the pole was located, was negligent in failing to inspect the pole and discover the defects which resulted in its collapse. But the trial court, upon evidence disclosing that the pole had been neither supplied nor installed by the cooperative association, directed a verdict in its favor and the time for appeal from the judgment then entered in its favor has expired.1
The present appeal is effectual to raise these issues:
(1) Did the trial court err in refusing plaintiffs' request to instruct the jury that the failure of defendants Frank Thies, owner of the premises involved, and Elmer Thies, in possession of the premises under an arrangement whereby the crops raised on it were shared with the owner, were subject to the provisions of Minn.St.1965, § 326.32,2 and §§ 47 and 213 of the National Electrical Safety Code relating to electrical lines and equipment?
(2) Does the evidence establish negligence on the part of defendants Thies or either of them as a matter of law?
1. The pole involved was installed in 1938 by an electrical contractor employed for the purpose by Elmer Thies.
Minn.St.1965, § 326.32, subd. 1, provided:
Section 47 of the National Electrical Safety Code provides in part:
"Electric supply lines mean those conductors and their necessary supporting or containing structures which are located entirely outside of buildings and are used for transmitting a supply of electrical energy."
Section 213(A) (2), of this code provides:
"Lines and equipment shall be systematically inspected from time to time by the person responsible for the installation."
There was no error assertable by plaintiffs as against defendants Thies because of the failure to give this instruction as requested. The purpose of § 326.32 was to fix minimum standards for the regulation of persons and corporations engaged in installing or repairing electrical wires and apparatus. L.1899, c. 312, approved April 2, 1899, from which §§ 326.24 to 326.32 were derived, is so entitled. The regulations involved were intended to apply to electricians, producers, and distributors of electric energy. Erlandson v. Northern States Power Co., 258 Minn. 482, 104 N.W.2d 859.3 The person who installed the pole on the Thies farm was not a party to this action. It is not claimed that either of defendants Thies is or has been engaged in the business of making electrical installations. As to them, therefore, the statute relied upon has no application.
2. Plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants Thies or either of them was negligent as a matter of law in failing to discover the defective condition of the pole which caused it to break while plaintiff Charles Cox was working on it. The defect was not apparent.
Elmer Thies, who ordered the installation of the pole in 1938, knew or should have known that it was not treated in such a way as to make it impervious to decay when placed in the ground. It is also a fact that the pole had been in position for approximately 22 years as of the time the accident occurred. There was expert testimony produced indicating that the decay of that portion of the pole which was beneath the surface of the ground and which caused it to collapse would have been discovered if a trench approximately 3 feet in depth had been dug around the base of the pole to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nolan v. Borkowski
...Jackson, , 552 P.2d 509 (1976); Portland Gas Light Co. v. Ruud, 242 Mass. 272, 136 N.E. 75 (1922); Cox v. Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Assn., 281 Minn. 228, 161 N.W.2d 294 (1968)." Batick v. Seymour, supra, at 635, 491 A.2d It is quite another matter to allege that a fellow employee......
-
Batick v. Seymour
...Colo. 249, 552 P.2d 509 (1976); Portland Gas Light Co. v. Ruud, 242 Mass. 272, 136 N.E. 75 (1922); Cox v. Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Assn., 281 Minn. 228, 161 N.W.2d 294 (1968). 2 While it is true "that a transfer of property could be innocently motivated, ... it is the relevancy ......
-
Bush v. Jackson
...to evade satisfaction of it. But such evidence does not establish negligence as a matter of law. Cox v. Wright-Hennepin Co-Operative Electric Association, 281 Minn. 228, 161 N.W.2d 294 (1968). II. The trial court instructed the 'You are instructed that the transfer of property by a person a......