Denson v. Ga. Ry. & Electric Co

• Decision Date: 23 September 1910
• Citation: 135 Ga. 132,68 S.E. 1113
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: DENSON v. GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO.

68 S.E. 1113

135 Ga. 132

DENSON

v.GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 23, 1910.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Negligence (§ 4*)—Electricity {§§ 14, 19*)—"Ordinary Care"—Master and Servant—Injury to Employe—Instructions. In an action for damages on account of the homicide of the plaintiff's husband, under the pleading and the evidence the following facts appeared: The plaintiff's husband was in the employment of one of the defendant's patrons, and was charged with the duty of repairing shafting, machinery, "and the like." The defendant contracted to deliver into the plant of the company where the plaintiff's husband worked currents of 220 volts of electricity on a wire for supplying power and 110 volts on each of two other wires used for feeding electric lights. While engaged in his duties, the plaintiff's husband came into contact with the wire or bulb on an extension cord connected with a wire feeding one of the electric lights, and received a shock causing his death. The defendant carried on its primary wires to a transformer located near the plant a current of 2, 300 volts; said transformer being for the purpose of reducing the current to that which the defendant was to supply to the plant. Various acts of negligence were alleged to have been committed by the defendant, which resulted in allowing the wire with which the plaintiff came in contact to become charged with an excessive and deadly current, and with respect to its failure to provide suitable appliances whereby this could have been prevented. The jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted to the order of the court denying her motion, for a new trial. Held, that "ordinary care" is a relative term, and the diligence which will amount to ordinary care varies according to the circumstances of each particular case. Central R., etc., Co. v. Ryles, 84 Ga. 420, 11 S. E. 499. (a) A power company, in furnishing electrici-ty to patron?, with respect to employes of the latter rightfully on the premises of the patron and likely to come into contact with wires carrying the current supplied, is bound to use ordinary care, which demands that the power company shall use such diligence in preventing injuries to such employes as is commensurate with the danger involved in the use and control of such a subtle and deadly agency as electricity. 1 Thompson on Negligence, § 804.

(b) The court charged the jury as follows: "If you find, under the evidence and the law as given you in charge, that the defendant was supplying electricity to the building in which the plaintiff's husband was employed and at work, and that the defendant exercised ordinary care in supplying electric current and in supplying such appliances as were in general use at the time of the death of plaintiff's husband, then the plaintiff could not recover. The defendant is not required to put in every latest device. It is only required to use the kind of machinery in general use and that is reasonably suited for the purpose for which it was intended; and you are to consider this at the time of the accident." The court gave the jury other charges of a similar nature. Such charges were erroneous, for the reason that it was a question for the jury to determine as to whether or not the...