Geroski v. Allegheny County Light Co.
| Decision Date | 02 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 27 |
| Citation | 93 A. 338,247 Pa. 304 |
| Parties | Geroski v. Allegheny County Light Co., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 13, 1914
Appeal, No. 27, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., First Term, 1911, No. 338, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary Geroski v. Allegheny County Light Company, a corporation. Reversed.
Trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's husband. Before DAVIS, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict for plaintiff for $4,783.50 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant and in refusing to enter judgment for defendant n.o.v.
The first and second assignments of error are sustained. The judgment is reversed, and it is now entered for the defendant.
John G Frazer, with him Reed, Smith, Shaw & Beal, for appellant. -- The accident did not result from any breach of duty on the part of the defendant: Trout v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 236 Pa. 506; O'Gara v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 244 Pa. 156; Green v. West Penn Railways Company, 246 Pa. 340.
A. E Goss, with him Robertson & Link, for appellee. -- It cannot be said that the accident was so extraordinary as to absolve the defendant from liability for failing to guard against it: Morgan v. Electric Company, 213 Pa. 151; Penna. Telephone Company v. Varnau, 5 Lanc. Law R. 401; Devlin v. Beacon Light Company, 192 Pa. 188; Dillon v. Light Company, 179 Pa. 482; Griesemer v. Suburban Electric Company, 224 Pa. 328; Fitzgerald v. Edison Electric Illuminating Company, 200 Pa. 540; Mullen v. Wilkes-Barre Gas & Electric Co., 229 Pa. 54; Alexander v. Nanticoke Light Company, 209 Pa. 571; Illings-worth v. Boston Electric Light Company, 161 Mass. 583 (37 N.E. Repr. 778); Cramer v. Aluminum Company, 239 Pa. 120.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
Mary Geroski brought this action of trespass against the Allegheny County Light Company, to recover damages for the death of her husband, John Geroski, which she alleges was due to the negligence of defendant. Geroski was a coal miner and lived at Glendale, Allegheny County. He was also the janitor of the Polish Falcon Hall at that place. The hall fronts on a public street, and upon the roof of the front portion of the hall, there is a flagpole. The wires of the defendant company are strung upon poles along the side of the street in front of the hall, at a distance of twelve or thirteen feet from the building, and at a height of about twenty-nine feet from the ground. The flagpole extends some eight or ten feet higher than the wires. There is a narrow boardwalk in front of the hall, and defendant's poles are placed between it and the roadway. On May 28, 1910, Geroski was about to raise the flag on the pole. A rope had previously been used for that purpose, but at that time Geroski attempted to remove the rope and replaced it with a piece of copper plated wire. He attached an end of the wire to the rope, and began to pull it up. When the wire reached the top of the pole, it became entangled in some way, and in trying to loosen it, Geroski stepped backwards from the porch of the hall, where he had been standing, to the boardwalk, and then into the roadway, pulling and shaking the wire and rope. While so engaged, the small wire evidently came in contact with or in close proximity to, the overhead electric wire, and Geroski received an electric shock which caused his death. It was alleged on the part of plaintiff that defendant's overhead wire which was charged with a powerful current of electricity, was not properly insulated, and was not in good repair. The trial in the court below resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon defendant has appealed.
The first assignment of error is to the refusal of the trial judge to give binding instructions in favor of the defendant and the second assignment is to his refusal to enter judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. It was admitted that the electric wires were part of a so-called high tension power line, carrying 10,000 volts. The evidence offered upon the part of plaintiff tended to show that the insulation on the electric wires was worn off to a slight extent in a few places, but there was nothing to indicate that the wires were in any way out of repair. The testimony of the witnesses who had any knowledge of electricity, tended to show that Geroski did not receive anything like the full force of the current, or such as he would have received had the wire in his hand come in direct contact with an uninsulated part of the overhead electric wire. The testimony of these witnesses, who had expert knowledge of the subject, and of the conditions which existed at the time, tended to show that the shock which Geroski received, came from the fact that the wire in his hand was brought by him into close proximity to the overhead highly charged electric wire, but not into actual contact with it. In the judgment of these witnesses, the injury was caused by the leakage of static electricity from the overhead wire, which when the small wire was brought near to it, entered it by induction. It was further pointed out, that in case of direct contact between the wires, the burns received by Geroski would have been much more severe, and death would have been instantaneous. It matters not, however, whether the injury resulted from direct contact with the overhead wire, or from leakage therefrom which entered the small wire held by Geroski, when it was brought by him into close proximity to the overhead wire. For in any event, it is apparent from the testimony in this case, that with such high tension wires as these, carrying so heavy a voltage, mere insulation alone, could not be depended upon to insure safety to the public. In any such case, due precaution would require that the wires should be so placed, that there would be no likelihood or reasonable probability of human contact therewith. If therefore, under the circumstances the defendant company ought to have reasonably anticipated, that anyone in the proper exercise of business or pleasure would come in contact with its overhead wires at the location in which they were placed, it would properly be liable in damages, for such injuries as were the proximate result of such location, unless the injured person was guilty of negligence contributing to the injury. Can it be said in the present case that appellant ought to have reasonably anticipated that any person upon the ground would come in contact with its electric wires carried at a height of twenty-nine feet in the air, and twelve feet distant from the building? Was it bound to foresee that appellee's husband would attach a wire to the flagpole twelve feet away, and then walk out into the street under the wires, and pull upon the small wire in his hand, until he had drawn it over the intervening distance, and brought it in contact with, or in close proximity to, the overhead electric wire? If not, then it follows under what may properly be regarded as the well settled doctrine of our cases, that there can be no recovery by plaintiff, and that judgment should have been entered for the defendant. Thus in Trout v. Electric Co., 236 Pa. 506, it appeared that a thirteen year old boy was endeavoring to detach a kite from an electric wire on which it had been caught when he received a shock which resulted in his death. The wire was stretched upon poles, at a distance of about four feet six inches from the outside edge of the cornice of the house. The boy lay down on the cornice and threw a corncob tied to the end of a string, over the electric wire and pulled it toward him; when the wire came within reach he touched it, and immediately received the electric shock. This court...
To continue reading
Request your trial