Federal Electric Co. v. Taylor
Decision Date | 18 April 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 7301.,7301. |
Citation | 19 F.2d 122 |
Parties | FEDERAL ELECTRIC CO., Inc., v. TAYLOR. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John S. Marsalek, of St. Louis, Mo. (W. E. Moser, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
James T. Blair, of St. Louis, Mo. (Foristel, Mudd, Hezel & Habenicht, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before KENYON, Circuit Judge, and MOLYNEAUX and OTIS, District Judges.
The defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, brought this suit to recover damages from the plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. The plaintiff's injuries were sustained by him by reason of his falling from a narrow platform, while engaged in work in the service of the defendant upon an electric sign.
The sign involved was built upon the top of a canopy extending out from the theater building across the sidewalk. On the north and south sides of the canopy there were illuminated electric signs, so arranged that large letters could be placed thereon. Extending along the base of the sign was a platform eight or ten inches wide, on which the men stood in performing this task. The inside of the platform was about six inches from the face of the sign. Extending horizontally across the face of each of the signs were three metal straps. At the top of each letter were two iron hooks; there were two plugs and a number of metal posts at the bottom. The letters were affixed to the sign by catching the hooks over the metal straps. The plugs and posts were pushed into the sockets in the face of the sign, thus connecting up the electric current to the letter. The wiring was on the inside of the letter. While changing the letters, the men also replaced burned-out bulbs. It was customary for the current to be turned on while this work was being carried on. The sign was built up of metal angle iron and was closed in. The metal conduits, consisting of iron pipe, came into the sign. The electric wires were inside the pipe. At different points along the pipe the wires were brought out through the porcelain insulators to different taps along the sign. There is a conduit running along each row of letters. There are no exposed conductors of electricity on the sign, except the conduits on the inside of the porcelain insulators, and these are set back. In one socket the thread shell was charged, and in the alternate socket the center contact inside of the base was charged. This was the usual construction, and the same are to be found in every household. In unscrewing the bulb, one's hand would necessarily come very close to the socket. By touching the charged side, and at the same time touching some metal that is grounded, one would receive a shock.
The sign is known as a three-wire sign. The wires carried 230 volts from the source of supply, the light pole; 115 volts were used for lighting the letters and the other 115 volts were used for lighting the upper or decorative part of the sign. There were three wires from the electric pole to the sign. The center wire is the neutral line, and is grounded to the earth at the transformers on the pole and at the power plant. All the wires, with the exception of the neutral wire, are clear of the ground; but the sign itself — that is, all framework, metal work, conduit work, and structural iron work — is bonded together and grounded to the earth through the structural iron work of the building, so that, in case of a short circuit, the metal work would carry the current to the ground and blow the fuse immediately.
The expert witness for the defendant testified that as a result of this grounding it was possible, without any mechanical defect in the sign, to obtain an electric shock by touching the metal part of the sign, at the same time touching the metal part of the globe on the live side, and in so doing you would complete the circuit from the live side of the socket to the framework, which is the same as the neutral wire. If a sign were not grounded, and one touched the metal part of the sign and touched the contact, he could not get a shock, because there would be nothing to complete the circuit, unless he touched one side of the circuit in the letters and the other side of the same circuit in the upper or decorative part of the sign.
The grounding of the metal parts of the sign was the usual construction required by law, and was customary and usual. The Underwriters' regulations specifically state that any metal parts in any conduit must be bonded together and grounded to the earth. At the time of the accident it was raining. The outer portions of the glass bulb and the platform on which the plaintiff was standing were wet. As to the happening of the accident, the plaintiff testified that he was standing on this platform, and with his right hand was in the act of unscrewing a burned-out bulb from one of the letters in the top row of the sign, and was holding onto the metal framework of the sign with the other hand, when he received a shock which caused him to jerk his hands. He tried to catch himself; he grabbed one of the letters, which came out of the socket, and he fell. He testified that no part of his hand was touching the metal part of the bulb. He testified he had received a number of slight shocks while working on this sign at other times before the day of the accident. In dry weather these shocks were not so severe. He testified that he did not remember of receiving any shocks on the day of the accident, other than the one which caused the accident. He had about finished changing the sign when he received the shock.
To prove that the sign was defective, plaintiff introduced the witness Robert F. Stephenson, who stated that he was connected with the office of the plaintiff's attorneys. In relating his experience in electrical work, he testified that he had installed illuminating systems in mines in Illinois for the Philadelphia Storage Battery Company. He had much experience in putting up wire and making circuits and things of that kind. The witness stated he did some work making, assembling, and installing parts. Over the objection of the defendant, that the witness had shown no proper qualifications and was not shown to have any knowledge of the construction of the particular sign in question, the witness was permitted to testify that shocks from electricity could not be produced by anything except a short circuit, and that this sign must have been defective, or the plaintiff could not have received the shock; but on cross-examination of the witness he qualified his testimony. He testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corson v. Wilson
... ... (Mo.) 99 S.W. 1062; O'Rourke v. Marshall Field & ... Co. (Ill.) 138 N.E. 625; Federal Electric Co. v ... Taylor, 19 F.2d 122; White v. Ry. Co., 246 F ... 427. Plaintiffs cannot ... ...
-
Heffter v. Northern States Power Company
... ... on the right side of Lexington to wait for the electric stop ... sign to change to "Go." He intended to turn left ... toward Minneapolis. Defendant's ... S.W. 139 ... This ... principle has caused many state and the federal courts to ... hold that where one pleads specific negligence he cannot rely ... on this rule. eral Elec. Co. v. Taylor (C.C.A.) ... 19 F.2d 122; Porter v. St. Joseph Ry. L.H. & P. Co ... 311 Mo. 66, 277 S.W. 913; ... ...
-
Turner v. ILG Techs.
... ... indeed less than ten minutes from the Federal Courthouse in ... Jefferson City, where ILG's principal place of business ... is ... inference plaintiff intends to rely upon); see also Fed ... Elec. Co. v. Taylor , 19 F.2d 122, 125 (8th Cir. 1927) ... (“The res ipsa loquitur doctrine ... can ... ...
-
Crozier v. Hawkeye Stages, Inc.
... ... Kelly v. Muscatine, B. & S. R. Co. , ... 195 Iowa 17, 191 N.W. 525. See, also, Federal Elec. Co ... v. Taylor , 19 F.2d 122." ... In the ... instant case, we have ... ...