Croxton v. Duke Power Co.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 6036.,6036. |
| Parties | CROXTON v. DUKE POWER CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Jay W. Alexander, Jr., Charlotte, N. C., and Robert W. Hemphill, Chester, S. C., for appellant.
W. B. McGuire, Jr., Charlotte, N. C. , for appellee.
Before SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and HUTCHESON, District Judge.
Daisy V. Croxton, Administratrix of the Estate of H. C. Croxton, instituted this civil action against the Duke Power Company, a corporation, in the Superior Court for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, to recover damages for the wrongful death of her husband, allegedly due to the negligence of the Duke Power Company. The case was removed by the defendant to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Upon the conclusion of all the evidence defendant moved for a directed verdict. The motion was granted by the District Court and judgment was entered for the defendant. Plaintiff has duly appealed.
Plaintiff's husband was employed by Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and had been working at the Mecklenburg County Farm for several years as a maintenance man. On July 30, 1948, he was engaged in putting tin on the roof of a hay barn which was being constructed by Mecklenburg County on the County Farm. Construction of this building had been in progress for three days and unfortunately one end of the barn was located beneath a power line of the Duke Power Company, which carried an electric current of 7,200 volts. The barn was 17 feet, 11 inches high, the electric wires were 23 feet, 9 inches, above the ground, and consequently there was a clearance of 5 feet, 10 inches, between the roof and the wires. The deceased was instructed by his foreman to go to the end of the roof over which the wires passed. In carrying out this instruction, the deceased in some manner came in contact with the high-voltage wire and was electrocuted.
The electric line in question was located upon a right of way granted to the defendant by the County and ran from the white section of the County Home to the colored section across an open field which was enclosed by a barbed wire fence. The wire was not insulated but was covered with a braided weather-proof covering. The clearance of the wires above ground (in excess of 23 feet) was sufficient, according to the testimony at the trial below and the North Carolina law. See Stanley v. Smithfield, 211 N.C. 386, 190 S.E. 207. There was testimony that 7,200 volts is the voltage customarily used by the majority of utilities for rural power distribution. The defendant power company did not know, and had no reason to know, that the barn was being erected upon its right of way and under its line.
Plaintiff contends that defendant was negligent in carrying so much electricity through what is alleged to be a congested area and should have placed a transformer on the line to reduce the voltage before it reached the area surrounding the barn. This contention, however, is based upon two erroneous assumptions. First, the accident occurred in the middle of an open field, which can hardly be characterized as a congested area, especially when protected by a barbed wire fence, although there were some outbuildings surrounding the colored and white sections of the County Home. Secondly, the plaintiff concludes that by placing the transformer within 750 feet of the load, the voltage could have been reduced over the whole so-called "congested" area. This assumption is not supported by the record; for it appears that the transformer would have had to be placed at a much greater distance. The evidence produced below was to the effect that the transformer was properly located,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crosby v. Savannah Elec. & Power Co., 42091
...with them, it is not generally required. 29A C.J.S. Electricity § 42, p. 1073; 26 Am.Jur.2d 332 Electricity, § 122. Cf. Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 306; Morton's Admr. v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co., 282 Ky. 174, 138 S.W.2d 345; Buell v. Utica Gas & Elec. Co., 259 N......
-
Foote v. Scott-New Madrid-Mississippi Elec. Co-op.
...Mo.App. 548, 561, 167 S.W.2d 457, 460(6). See also Hale v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 8 Cir., 192 F.2d 274, 276(4); Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 306, 308; 18 Am.Jur., Electricity, Sec. 48, loc. cit. 446; Id., Sec. 93, loc. cit. 487.4 Schneiter, supra, 232 Mo.App. loc. cit.......
-
Manaia v. Potomac Electric Power Company
...Gas, Electric Light & Power Co., 159 Md. 138, 150 A. 452; Burns v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 4 Cir., 193 F.2d 525; Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 306; Banks v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., 2 Cir., 224 F.2d 631; American General Ins. Co. v. Southwestern Gas & Electric ......
-
Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co., 4267.
...Co. v. Wilson, 172 Okl. 540, 45 P.2d 750; Troidle v. Adirondack Power & Light Corp., 252 N.Y. 483, 169 N.E. 654. 7 Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 306; Pascoe v. Southern California Edison Co., 102 Cal.App.2d 254, 227 P. 2d 555; Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Wilson, 172 Okl. 54......