General Electric Co. v. Murray

• Decision Date: 14 April 1903
• Parties: GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. et al. v. MURRAY.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

74 S.W. 50

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. et al. v. MURRAY.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

April 14, 1903.

Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Chas. E. Ashe, Judge.

Action by John W. Murray against the General Electric Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Terry, Ballinger, Smith & Cavin and James B. & Charles J. Stubbs, for appellants. Lovejoy & Malevinsky, for appellee.

PLEASANTS, J.

Appellee brought this suit against the General Electric Company, a corporation, and Walter W. Reed and John Sehorn, as vice principals of said company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. The defendants answered by general denial, and pleas of assumed risk and contributory negligence. The trial in the court below by a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff against the defendants for $7,000.

The record discloses the following facts: Plaintiff was on the 27th of June, 1900, in the employment of the defendant, the General Electric Company, in the capacity of lineman. The defendant company was then, and had been for some time prior thereto, engaged in the work of reconstructing the lines of the Citizens' Light & Power Company in the city of Houston. The defendant Reed was employed by the defendant company as an electric engineer, and was superintending the work of reconstructing the lines of the Citizens' Company, and was also engineer for the latter company. The defendant Sehorn was employed by the defendant company as foreman of construction. At the time plaintiff was injured the defendant company had control of the entire plant of the Citizens' Company, including the currents of electricity which were sent out from the power house over the wires of said company. Both Reed and Sehorn had authority to employ and discharge the linemen engaged in reconstructing the plant. On the day above named, plaintiff, in the discharge of the duties of his employment, went upon one of the poles of the Citizens' Company for the purpose of rearranging the wires and placing an arc light thereon. While thus engaged he came in contact with a wire charged with electricity, and received an electric shock which rendered him unconscious, and injured him in the manner and to the extent complained of in the petition. Plaintiff did not know when he took hold of the wires that the current of electricity had been turned on, but this fact was known to both defendants Reed and Sehorn. The wires on the pole upon which plaintiff was at work were improperly and negligently placed upon the pole, in that the two primary or high-voltage wires were placed within a few inches of each other and upon the same side of the pole, when they should have been placed upon opposite sides of the pole and upon the opposite ends of the cross-arm to which they were attached. Had the wires been properly placed, plaintiff would not have been injured, notwithstanding the electric current had been turned on said wires without his knowledge, because no injury would have been caused plaintiff if his person had not come in contact with both of said primary wires at the same time, and this would not have occurred had the wires been placed in their proper position upon the pole. All of the wires upon the pole were similar in appearance, and there was no way by which the primary or high-voltage wires could be distinguished from those of low voltage, and plaintiff had no knowledge of the fact that the primary wires were not in their proper position. Both defendants Reed and Sehorn knew that the wires were not properly placed upon the pole. Plaintiff was a competent and experienced lineman. He testified that he might have removed the wires from the cross-arm without receiving any injury had he known that they were charged with electricity, and that it was good practice to handle all wires as though they were live wires, unless they were positively known not to be charged with electricity, and that such was the general custom among linemen during the time he had been engaged in that occupation. Plaintiff knew that as soon as the reconstruction of the electric plant should be completed the current would be turned on in the daytime, and heard the matter frequently discussed by the men engaged in the work. He also knew that when the current was turned on at the power house it went over the entire system of wires. Most of the plant had been reconstructed at the time plaintiff was injured, but the line on which he was at work had not been. The...