Elliott v. Allegheny County Light Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1903
• Docket Number: 90
• Citation: 204 Pa. 568,54 A. 278
• Parties: Elliott, Appellant, v. Allegheny County Light Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

54 A. 278

204 Pa. 568

Elliott, Appellant, v. Allegheny County Light Company

No. 90

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 5, 1903

Argued November 4, 1902

Appeal, No. 90, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 323, on verdict for defendant in case of James Elliott v. Allegheny County Light Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court charged as follows:

[The proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries was his fall from the ladder, and not his grasping the wire in the line of his fall. The negligence of the defendant, if any, was intervening, but not a proximate cause of the accident. For this reason we direct a verdict for the defendant.]

Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was the charge of the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Rody P Marshall, with him Thomas M. Marshall, for defendant, cited as to the question of proximate cause: Vallo v. United States Express Co., 147 Pa. 404; Sturgis v Kountz, 165 Pa. 358; Township of West Mahanoy v. Watson, 3 A. Repr. 866; Behling v. S.W. Penna. Pipe Line, 160 Pa. 359; Penna. R.R. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. 373.

Samuel McClay, with him J. H. Reed, Edwin W. Smith, George E. Shaw and J. H. Beal, for appellee, cited: Kelly v. Bennett, 132 Pa. 218; Hunter v. Wanamaker, 17 W.N.C. 232; Herr v. City of Lebanon, 149 Pa. 222; Gaughan v. Philadelphia, 119 Pa. 503.

Before MITCHELL, DEAN, FELL, BROWN and POTTER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE POTTER:

The appellant, while engaged as a painter, fell from, or with, a ladder that slipped from its proper position, while he was using it. In the effort to save himself he reached out, while in the act of falling, and clutched at an electric light wire, which was supported from brackets at the side of the building. It is claimed that this wire was not properly insulated, and for that reason the appellant was shocked and burned, and was possibly thereby prevented from mitigating the force of his fall.

At the close of the testimony, the trial judge gave binding instructions in favor of the defendant, upon the ground that the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries was his fall from the ladder; and not his grasping the wire in the line of the fall. This view was manifestly correct. It is undisputed that the defendant was in nowise responsible for the slipping of the ladder, which was the originating cause of the...