Gilbert v. Duluth General Electric Company
| Decision Date | 22 July 1904 |
| Docket Number | 13,961 - (197) |
| Citation | 100 N.W. 653,93 Minn. 99 |
| Parties | CHRISTENA A. GILBERT and Another v. DULUTH GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county by plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of Samuel V. Gilbert, deceased to recover $5,000 for the death of deceased. The case was tried before Cant, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for the sum demanded. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Death Caused by Electricity.
The evidence supports the claim that plaintiff's intestate came to his death from a shock of electricity received as the result of the crossing of a primary and secondary wire installed by defendant. It appears the former carried twenty-two hundred voltage of electricity, and the latter connected with the electric fixtures at the residence of deceased.
Evidence of Negligence.
Evidence to the effect that such wires were strung on the same cross-arm, sixteen inches apart, upon poles one hundred feet distant from each other, that they had been crossed two weeks before, and again found to be crossed a few hours after the accident, coupled with evidence tending to show that such wires were permitted to sag four feet between poles, and that the insulating material was worn off at the point of contact taken in connection with other evidence introduced, is sufficient to support a verdict in an issue charging defendant with negligence in the construction and maintenance of its wires.
Reasonable Care.
Electric companies are bound to use reasonable care in the construction and maintenance of their lines and apparatus. This care varies with the risks to be apprehended from negligence. Where the wires carry strong and dangerous currents of electricity, and the result of negligence may be exposure to death or serious accident, a high degree of care is required. Under such circumstances "reasonable care" and a high "degree of diligence" may be deemed to be synonymous.
Dwelling House.
Parties installing electric light fixtures in houses are not bound to anticipate that electric light companies furnishing electricity to the public will be negligent in either the construction or maintenance of their respective systems connecting therewith, and the installation of a defective electric socket by plaintiff's intestate at his place of residence did not constitute such negligence as will preclude a recovery herein.
Opinion Evidence.
Opinions of physicians, based upon facts assumed in a certain hypothetical question, held admissible. Other errors assigned do not constitute reversible error.
Francis W. Sullivan, for appellant.
Davis & Hollister, for respondents.
Appeal from an order of the district court denying the motion of defendant to set aside the verdict of the jury and to direct judgment in favor of defendant, as well as for a new trial.
This action was brought by the administratrix and administrator of the estate of Samuel V. Gilbert, deceased, to recover damages arising from the alleged negligence of appellant resulting in the death of said Gilbert. At three o'clock in the morning of April 28, 1903, the deceased, accompanied by his wife, went into his bathroom, and took hold of an electric light fixture with one hand and a water faucet with the other. A blue flame and sparks were immediately noticeable at the point of contact with the electric light fixture, and he fell backward dead. Both hands were burned, and in appearance resembled flesh seared with a hot iron. He was in perfect health at the time. An autopsy disclosed that such burns may have been caused by electricity. The blood was fluid, not coagulated; and slight hemorrhages had occurred in the lining membrane of the stomach and also in the nostrils or bronchial tubes. It is conceded these conditions are commonly present in cases of death by electricity. Physicians called at the trial stated that they were unable, from the appearance of the deceased, to form an opinion as to the cause of death, but each testified, against defendant's objections, upon the assumption set forth in the following question, that in his judgment death resulted from a shock of electricity:
Q. Now, assuming, however, that on the morning before he died, or of his death, he received an electric shock by coming in contact with an electric light fixture and at the same time putting his hand upon a water fixture to complete the circuit, taking that fact together with the conditions that you found there at the autopsy, what is your opinion as to the cause of death?
Defendant was engaged in the business of furnishing electric light to the deceased and other patrons, and to convey such electricity strung wires upon poles about one hundred feet apart in the streets of the city of Duluth. Two weeks prior to this accident two of these wires were found to be crossed, but evidence was offered tending to show they did not remain crossed, during a part of the time at least, intervening between that date and April 28. The wind blew at the rate of fifty miles an hour on the night previous. At seven o'clock on the morning of April 28 the same wires, one of which ran directly to the house occupied by deceased, and connected with his electric light fixtures, were again found to be crossed at the same place. One was a primary and the other a secondary wire. The former carried twenty two hundred volts of electricity, and at the place of contact, which covered a distance of approximately sixteen feet, the coating which operates to insulate the wire was in one place worn off, and a blue flame was emitted from such wire at this point of contact. Five hundred voltage is sufficient to cause death. Secondary wires ordinarily carry a voltage of not to exceed one hundred. On the morning of the 28th, while such wires were crossed, another party in the basement of the house occupied by the deceased received a terrific shock and was knocked down upon touching an electric fixture with his hand, which was encased in a heavy glove. The glove was badly burned. We are of the opinion the admission of this evidence, as well as the evidence tending to show that such wires were crossed at seven o'clock on the morning of the accident, was not error. While the conditions existing after an occurrence are ordinarily inadmissible as tending to show a prior state of facts, still such conditions are often extremely material, and almost conclusive. Evidence was offered tending to show that the insulated material upon the primary wire was so badly worn as to indicate that it had been in this condition a number of days, which fact, independent of other considerations, made such evidence material, as it tended to show the wires had been crossed for considerable time before the accident.
It appears from the record that...
To continue reading
Request your trial