Decatur Light, Power & Fuel Co. v. Newsom

• Decision Date: 11 April 1912
• Parties: DECATUR LIGHT, POWER & FUEL CO. v. NEWSOM.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

59 So. 615

179 Ala. 127

DECATUR LIGHT, POWER & FUEL CO. v. NEWSOM.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 11, 1912

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1912.

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Morgan County; Thos. W. Wert Judge.

Action by C. B. Newsom, as administrator, against the Decatur Light Power & Fuel Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The theory of both plaintiff and defendant sufficiently appears from the opinion.

(29) "If there is one individual juror who is reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the injuries to plaintiff's intestate was a proximate result of her taking hold of the suspended wire, and said wire was, at the time of the said taking hold of the same, suspended across an electric wire, which was a live one, to be charged with electricity, and which was known to her, and she heedlessly took hold of same and thereby received injuries complained of, plaintiff cannot recover."

(31) "If you believe the evidence, you will find that it was not practicable nor customary to string guard wires at the place where the injury occurred, or places like situated and with like surroundings."

(41) "If you believe the evidence, you will find that the life and durability of standard insulation is from six to twelve years. You will further find, if you believe the evidence, that the electric wire complained of had been in service for a period of about four years."

(46) "If you believe the evidence, you will find that the machinery that furnished the arc current was not in operation at the time of the injury, and that no current was furnished from defendant's power house or generators to said arc wires at the time of the occurrence of said injury."

(47) "If you believe the evidence, you will find that the wires of defendant where the injuries occurred were its arc circuit wires, and that the current was cut off of said wires about 4 o'clock in the morning of the injury to intestate, and it was not again turned into said wires until after the injuries complained of."

Charges 51 to 56, inclusive, are that, if the jury believe the evidence, they will find certain facts to be true.

(40) The same as 41.

(21) "If you believe from the evidence that the intestate unnecessarily touched the wire and received the injury and shock producing the injury, the defendant is not liable therefor."

(33) "The fact, if you believe it to be a fact from the evidence, that plaintiff's intestate handled and moved said fallen wire on the night of June 23, 1908, and again on the morning of June 24th in going out of the gate, and to Mrs. Haralson, if she could see that the same was across an electric wire likely, or known by her to be, charged with electricity."

(36) "If you believe the evidence, you will find that when intestate went out of the gate with a lamp about 7 o'clock in the morning, she handled the wire and it was not charged with electricity, and that when she returned almost immediately afterwards and took hold of the wire and received the shock producing the injury complained of without negligence on defendant's part, your verdict should be for the defendant."

(39) "If you believe from the evidence that the telephone was properly equipped and fastened, and that defendant's wires were properly equipped at Third avenue and Prospect drive, and that the injury complained of was caused by the telephone wire falling across defendant's wire, and that this could not ordinarily have been inspected, the defendant is not liable for injuries resulting therefrom."

(42) "If you believe from the evidence that the suspended telephone wire was about two feet from the front gate of the plaintiff, and that there was space between the gate and the wire for plaintiff's intestate to have passed between it and the fence in safety, and that was apparent to her, and that she could see that the wire was across an electric wire, and without knowing whether said electric wire was charged or not with electricity she took hold of same and received the shock which produced the injuries, the defendant is not liable therefor."

(43) "If you believe from the evidence that intestate saw, or could have seen by the exercise of diligence, the suspended telephone wire across an electric wire, this, in and of itself, was sufficient to put her on notice of danger; and if she carelessly and unthoughtedly and inadvertently took hold of said wire, and thereby received injuries, the defendant is not liable therefor."

Eyster & Eyster, of Decatur, for appellant.

Harsh, Beddow & Fitts, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

Plaintiff's intestate, a girl 18 years of age, was killed by contact with a telephone wire charged with electricity. The wire had been disconnected at the service end, which end was firmly attached to a telephone post. During a severe wind and rain storm, this dead end became detached, and the wire fell across the service wires of the defendant company, which it crossed several feet above at right angles, and the loose end dangled down across the gateway entering the premises of intestate's home. This occurred about 10 o'clock p. m. About 7:15 o'clock next morning, the intestate had occasion to go through the gate on a neighborhood errand, and then pushed the wire aside without harm. On returning a few moments later, she again caught the wire, which was too low to pass freely under, and received the fatal shock.

One of the plaintiff's witnesses testified that...