Goebel v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 14464.,14464. |
| Citation | 188 S.W. 1135 |
| Parties | GOEBEL v. UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Eugene McQuillin, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Henry Goebel against the Union Electric Light & Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment affirmed.
Action for personal injuries alleged to have been received by plaintiff while working as a tinner on a cornice of a building, he having sustained a shock, as claimed, by coming in contact with a wire maintained by defendant, the wire carrying an electric current. Damages are placed at $7500.
The answer, after a general denial, pleads the contributory negligence of plaintiff in this:
"That by the ordinary use of his sense of sight, plaintiff could have seen the wire with which he came in contact, and by the exercise of ordinary care and caution could therefore have avoided touching the same and thus have avoided the accident and injury."
A trial before the court and a jury resulted in a verdict for $5000 in favor of plaintiff. Judgment following, defendant, filing its motion for a new trial, which was overruled and exceptions saved, has duly appealed.
Plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was a tinner and cornice worker employed by one Ogden, who, on the date of the accident, had sent him to repair the cornice of a house at the southeast corner of Botanical avenue and Thirty-Ninth street in the city of St. Louis, the house fronting on Botanical avenue and its rear flush with a public alley running east and west through the block, being on the south side of that alley. Plaintiff was working on the cornice on the rear of the building on this alley when he received the injury for which he brings his action. On the day in question plaintiff went to the premises with a helper or apprentice. He placed a long ladder against the rear end of the house, reaching to within a short distance of and below the roof. The building was a three-story one. He put the ladder in position in the alley, its top resting on the rear wall of the building up to the cornice, the foot of the ladder on the pavement of the alley and about four or five feet away from the rear wall of the building. The ladder was about 40 feet long. There were a number of electric wires, one of them belonging to the Bell Telephone Company, the others — at least six, although a witness said more — strung along arms on posts through the alley. When the ladder was in position, the electric wires were outside the ladder and the telephone wire or wires inside of it, or, as plaintiff testified, the live wires, meaning the electric light wires, were outside of the ladder and the telephone wire or wires inside of the ladder, between the ladder and the wall. The telephone wire, which was a little wire, ran along almost against the wall. Plaintiff had what is called a "jack," which was a seat or stand attached to the rung of the ladder by means of hooks. When it was hooked on, the man working either stood or sat on it to do his work. The wires were underneath the jack, a little below, not quite a foot below his feet when he was on the jack, which was about six inches above the wires. The helper being on top of the roof, handed the jack down to plaintiff, who hooked it on the rung of the ladder near the top and was just putting his leg over it when, as he testified, he saw a flash which flashed all over him and hit him and threw him off the ladder and down into the alley, a fall of 36 or 38 feet. He testified that he noticed the wires at the time he was going up and fixing the jack; saw that they were "ragged and fuzzy," but did not see any bare wire; had been working about wires for about 25 years. Asked if he knew the result of touching wires improperly insulated, he said that you could touch them and never know they are any different; that there is no danger in them; where the insulation is imperfect, however, he thought they were very dangerous. That was his testimony in chief.
On cross-examination plaintiff testified that he had on previous occasions touched a heavily charged wire that was covered with insulation; had done that as he could not help it; that if the wires are protected and insulated with a proper good insulation he thought he would have no fear and that there was no danger. There was no danger if it was insulated with a good covering and properly insulated. If the wires were properly insulated, he repeated, you would not get shocked. He further testified that he had neither sat on the jack nor stood on it; did not have time to do either; put out his hand to put the jack in place and was making ready to step over and on to the jack and just as he got his left leg over he thought he must have come in contact with the wire, as he then saw the flash, which went all over him, and received the shock which threw him to the alley. The closest wire to the jack, he testified, was about 12 inches distant and rather to the side. Going up the ladder he passed through the wires and noticed that they were "ragged and fuzzy." He was cross-examined at great length as to what he had testified to at a former trial, of the case, when he had testified that he had noticed this ragged and fuzzy condition of some of the wires; had noticed it as he put his foot over the jack. He also admitted that he had testified on his former trial that he noticed that this condition extended as far as the pole and six feet from it; it was plain to see that it was fuzzy. He further testified that he knew that if there was not good insulation there was danger in coming in contact with the wires; had worked among wires long enough to know that; and knew that he had to be very careful not to come in contact with uninsulated parts of the wire; knew that there was danger if the insulation wasn't perfect; knew that if the wires were perfectly insulated there as no danger and knew he had to be very careful not to come in contact with the uninsulated part of a wire; there was nothing to prevent him from constantly seeing these wires as he worked up there among them.
On redirect examination plaintiff testified that when he went to get the jack, he went right on up to the top and got the jack, went up without stopping; had noticed that part on the outside of these wires was fuzzy; had worked around wires for 25 years. Asked to what extent he had noticed the insulation was out of ordinary near the top, or if there was anything indicating danger, he said, "No." Asked if any part of the wire was exposed and entirely free from insulation, he answered, there was not, so far as he could see.
Other witnesses testified on behalf of plaintiff to the effect that the wires were ragged but apart from that, in apparently good condition.
It was in evidence that the wires had been exposed to a fire some weeks before plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hollis v. Kansas City Light & Power Co.
...thereto. So that the jury could well say the defendant was negligent in not maintaining proper insulation on said wire. Goebel v. Union, etc., Power Co., 188 S. W. 1135; Jeffrey v. Union, etc., Power Co., 171 Mo. App. 29, 153 S. W. 498. And allowing the insulation on the wire to get into su......
-
Hollis v. Kansas City Light and Power Co.
...thereto. So that the jury could well say the defendant was negligent in not maintaining proper insulation on said wire. [Goebel v. Union, etc., Power Co., 188 S.W. 1135; Jeffrey v. etc., Power Co., 171 Mo.App. 29, 153 S.W. 498.] And allowing the insulation on the wire to get into such condi......
-
Choka v. St. Joseph Railway, Light, Heat & Power Company
... ... Pitts, 102 Tex. 1; ... Sias v. Railway Co., 179 Mass. 343; Hector v ... Boston Electric Light Co., 161 Mass. 558; Graves v ... Water Power Co., 44 Wash. 675; Hickok v. Auburn L. & ... Mexico Power Co., 203 S.W. 232; ... Downs v. Telephone Co., 161 Mo.App. 274; Goebel ... v. Electric Light & Power Co., 188 S.W. 1135; Day v ... Light, Power & Ice Co., 136 p. 274; Hill v ... Union Electric Co., 260 Mo. 43; Illingsworth v ... Boston Electric Co., 161 Mass. 583, 25 L. R. A ... ...