Eargle v. Sumter Lighting Co.

• Decision Date: 22 July 1918
• Docket Number: 10055.
• Citation: 96 S.E. 909,110 S.C. 560
• Parties: EARGLE v. SUMTER LIGHTING CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 909

110 S.C. 560

EARGLE v. SUMTER LIGHTING CO.

No. 10055.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 22, 1918

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; R. W Memminger, Judge.

Action by F. M. Eargle, as administratrix, etc., against the Sumter Lighting Company. Judgment for defendant upon a directed verdict, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

R. D Epps, of Sumter, and W. N. Graydon, of Columbia, for appellant.

Lee & Moise, Purdy & Bland, and J. H. Clifton, all of Sumter, for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

Plaintiff appeals from judgment on a verdict directed for defendant. The action is for damages for the death of A. W. Eargle plaintiff's intestate, caused by alleged delicts of defendant, a corporation engaged in supplying electric lights to the city of Sumter. At the time of his death and for nine years before, Eargle had been in defendant's service as an engineer in charge of the steam engines at its power house, and was therefore familiar with his surroundings, and also with at least some of the dangers of the business in which he was engaged.

Near the engine room where Eargle worked, there was a small house in which oils and other supplies and accessories were kept for the use of the engineer and others employed about the place, and near the door of this house was a cooling tower, which was a tank filled with water and elevated some 15 feet above the ground. Some three months before the accident, defendant's electrical engineer installed a testing station under the cooling tower, the purpose being to test arc lamps that had been used in lighting the streets and had gotten out of order, after they had been repaired, to see if they were all right and fit to be put back into service on the streets. So far as it appears, there was no difference in the installation of the testing station and an ordinary station for a street light, except possibly in the insulation of the chain by which the lamp was raised into position and connected with the circuit, or disconnected and lowered to the ground. Therefore, if a lamp burned satisfactorily there, it was supposed to be fit for use anywhere. As there was almost a constant spray from the overflow of water in the cooling tower, the testing station was put under the tower, in order that the lamps might he tested in atmospheric conditions similar to those to which they would be subjected on the streets in rainy weather. The spray kept the supports of the tower and the ground beneath wet or damp; and there was testimony that, as water is a good conductor of electricity, this increased the danger of the electric current breaking through the insulation and passing through the chain so as to shock any one who might come in contact with it. The chain was fastened to one of the supports of the tower by one of its links being hooked over a spike driven in the support, so that about one foot of the chain swung free below the spike, and it was about the height of a man's shoulder above the ground, and within two feet of the door of the oil house. When a lamp was repaired and put into the testing station, it was left to burn there during the night, and, as Eargle was on duty at night, he was requested by the electrical engineer, and also by the lineman, whose duty it was to repair the lamps, to watch them and report how they burned. Late in the afternoon of February 5, 1916, the lineman repaired a lamp that had given trouble on the street, and put it in the testing station, and requested Eargle to watch it. About 11 o'clock that night Eargle was found dead in the door of the oil house, his body being partly within the house. There was evidence tending to prove that his death was caused by an electric shock transmitted through the chain which hung near the door. As no one saw the accident, it is not certain how he came in contact with the chain. The trial judge thought that he took hold of it to disconnect the lamp. But appellant contends that the evidence is also susceptible of the inference that he was going into the oil house for some purpose and accidentally came in contact with it. For obvious reasons, we express no opinion as to either theory. When found, he had been dead but a few minutes. There are some differences in the testimony of the several witnesses as to the conditions of the lamp and chain immediately and for some time after the accident. They generally agree that the light was flickering, sputtering, jumping, or fussing, as they varyingly expressed it. Some of them said that the chain was giving off sparks where it was fastened to the post; others said that the chain was sparking at other places; and others, that the sparking in the chain was intermittent, that the chain was not directly in contact with the post but was a few inches from it, and that it sparked only when there was enough vibration in the lower end of it to bring it into contact with the post.

At the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, defendant moved generally for a nonsuit, which was refused. During the taking of defendant's testimony, plaintiff's attorney sought to bring out, on cross-examination of defendant's witnesses, testimony which he thought would tend to show willfulness and wantonness on the part of defendant. The trial judge excluded it, saying that he had intended, when the motion for nonsuit was heard, to rule that there was no evidence of willfulness and grant a nonsuit as to punitive damages, and that he would direct the jury to that effect. Plaintiff's attorney insisted that he had the right to prove facts entitling plaintiff to recover punitive damages if he could, on cross-examination of defendant's witnesses; but the court ruled otherwise and held, as to that issue, that defendant might consider a nonsuit granted. This was error....