Haas v. Washington Water Power Co.

Decision Date10 November 1916
Docket Number13362.
Citation160 P. 954,93 Wash. 291
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesHAAS et al. v. WASHINGTON WATER POWER CO.

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke Judge.

Action by Louis J. Haas and another against the Washington Water Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Robertson & Miller and Rosenhaupt & Grant, all of Spokane, for appellants.

Post Russell, Carey & Higgins, of Spokane, for respondent.

ELLIS J.

Action for personal injuries. Defendant operates an extensive electric power system in Eastern Washington and Southern Idaho. It has a number of generating plants. One of these, a water power plant, is located on the Spokane river at Post Falls, Idaho. These generating plants are all tied into one system by means of high-power transmission lines which are controlled from a substantion in the city of Spokane, known as the Twenty-Ninth Avenue substation. The Post Falls plant is connected with the general system by two high-tension transmission lines running by different routes from Post Falls to the Twenty-Ninth Avenue substation. One of these lines passes through Otis Orchards, a community about 16 miles easterly from Spokane. This line normally carries from 60,000 to 64,000 volts. It consists of three wires. The poles carrying these wires in the vicinity of Otis Orchards are set along the south side of a highway known as the Trent road which runs in an easterly and westerly direction. One of the high-tension wires is strung on the extreme top of the poles, the other two near either end of a cross-arm attached to the pole a few feet below the top. These wires are at regular intervals transposed so that what is the top wire at one point is the north of south cross-arm wire at another point. These high-tension wires are uninsulated large aluminum wires, and are protected from contact with the poles and cross-arms by large insulators at the points where they are strung. This pole line also carries another power line running from Post Falls to a point some distance west of Otis Orchards, but not as far as Spokane. This second line also consists of three wires which normally carry approximately 6,900 volts. These wires are strung on a second cross-arm about 5 feet below the cross-arm carrying the two high-tension wires. The 6,900 volt wires constitute a distribution line, that is, they carry power intended for distribution to consumers along the route, among them the consumers at Otis Orchards. Two of these distribution wires are attached to that part of the cross-arm extending southerly from the pole. The third is attached to the opposite or northerly end of the cross-arm. The service wires, which must not be confused with the distribution wires, lead from the distribution wires on the poles to the premises of each individual consumer. Normally there is no connection between the high-tension 60,000 volt line and the 6,900 volt distribution line. The high-tension line is used exclusively to transmit current from the Post Falls plant to the Twenty-Ninth Avenue substation. All the power used by consumers along the route is transmitted over the 6,900 volt distribution line. The power is delivered to each individual consumer from this line through a transformer placed on the pole in front of his premises immediately beneath the cross-arm carrying the distribution wires. By the transformer the current of 6,900 volts is stepped down to 110 or 220 volts before it is passed onto the service wires. The side of the transformer into which the 6,900 volt current is received from the distribution wires is called the primary side and the other the secondary side. On each side of the transformer is a fuse box containing the fuse, which is a section of wire made of lead or other soft metal which will melt in case of an excessive charge of electricity, thus automatically severing the connection between the primary side of the transformer and the distribution wire, the fuse box on the other side being intended to perform the same office of severing the connection between the transformer and the service wire, in case an excessive current should find its way through the transformer. On the pole immediately in front of the plaintiffs' house there were two ground wires. One of these extended from the secondary side of the transformer down the pole into the ground. The other extended from the ground to the top of the pole, and had branches extending horizontally along the upper side of the uppermost cross-arm; that is, the cross-arm carrying the two 60,000 volt wires. The function of the first is to conduct into the ground any excess current that might pass through the transformer to the secondary side, that of the second to ground any current that might escape from the high-tension wires.

Plaintiffs live at Otis Orchards on the south side of the highway, and receive power from the defendant with which to light their dwelling. On plaintiffs' premises are located two dwellings. The larger is occupied by plaintiffs and their family, the smaller by the family of plaintiffs' married son. The two buildings are about 18 or 20 feet apart. Both are furnished with light by the same service wires which pass from the transformer to plaintiffs' dwelling and thence to that of their son. There was evidence indicating that only the two distribution wires strung on the south end of the lower cross-arm entered the transformer and furnished the power for the lighting of these two buildings, and that the wire strung on the end of the lower cross-arm north of the pole had no connection with the transformer.

Between 11 o'clock a. m. and noon on June 27 1914, there was a severe electrical storm, accompanied with rain and hail in the vicinity of Otis Orchards. Lightning struck defendant's high-tension transmission line a short distance to the west of the pole immediately in front of plaintiffs' premises. Some of the witnesses testified that they saw a ball of flame or fire traveling along the upper wire until it reached this pole, when it passed down the pole to the ground. Afterwards it was discovered that the insulator on the top of this pole was shattered and the top wire which it bore was thrown down, so that it lay across the top cross-arm about 2 feet from the pole. This same wire (which about one-half a mile to the west of the plaintiffs' residence was transposed to the north end of the cross-arm, so that at that point it was the north transmission wire) was broken a little less than 2 feet from the cross-arm of the pole at that point; that end of the broken wire projection into the air. The other end had fallen to the ground, and was hanging from the cross-arm of the next pole to the west, the end lying on the ground a little to the north of the pole line and passing about eight inches or a foot north of the north distribution wire on the lower cross-arm. The fuse box on the primary side of the transformer on the pole in front of plaintiffs' premises was shattered by the lightning, and the fuse melted. The transformer was subsequently tested and found to be in perfect working condition. At the time of the storm plaintiff Wilhelmina Haas and her daughter were at work in the kitchen of plaintiffs' house. They were on either side of a table, over the middle of which was suspended from the ceiling an electric light. It seems to be conceded that a charge of lightning entered the house and shocked the daughter, throwing her to the floor and rendering her unconscious for a short time. When she recovered consciousness she discovered fire in the basement of her brother's house. She and her mother at once went into the other house and extinguished the fire. When the fire was discovered plaintiffs' daughter-in-law started towards a clubhouse about a quarter of a mile to the west, where her husband was employed to give an alarm. Plaintiffs' son and several fellow workmen, together with others, hastened to the scene of the fire, but by the time they reached it the fire had been extinguished. Immediately after the fire it was found that the electric light wires in the basement were disarranged and burned off, and that the electric light bulb was demolished. The burned wires were the wires of a switch which was placed on the door jamb of the cellar door. The ends of these switch wires were either hanging in the door or a short distance within the cellar. When the men came from the clubhouse and its vicinity, plaintiff Mrs. Haas and a young man named Morgenthaler, with several of the men, went into the basement to see that the fire was wholly out. Some of the men had passed out, but Mrs. Haas, Morgenthaler, and another man were in the act of passing out when Mrs. Haas, in passing under one of the wires which had been burned off, received a shock which severely burned her about the face, head, and soles of her feet. At the same time Morgenthaler, who was standing about 4 feet from the wire, but was uncertain whether he was touching Mrs. Haas or not, received a shock which threw him to the cellar floor and rendered him unconscious for a short time. One of the witnesses testified that, hearing the flash, he looked in the direction of Mrs. Haas and saw a flame passing from the ends of the wires directly into her face. From the evidence it seems to be fairly established that this occurred about 10 or 15 minutes after the defendant's power line was struck by lightning, and after the shock received by plaintiffs' daughter in the other house. It appears that the switchboard in defendant's substation at Twenty-Ninth avenue in Spokane is equipped with oil switches, so arranged that in case of any interruption of the circuit on the transmission wires the switch will be thrown, thus...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Morrow v. Missouri Gas & Electric Service Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1926
    ... ... Colfax Electric Co., ... 124 Iowa 500; Kuhlman v. Water, Light & Transit Co., ... 271 S.W. 797. (d) Where the accident, as in ... Moberly L. & P. Co., 303 Mo. 622; ... Lynch v. Meyersdale Power Co., 112 A. 58; Texas ... Power Co. v. Bristow, 213 S.W. 702; ... 80; Coleman v. Iowa Power ... Co., 178 N.W. 365; Washington Ry. Co. v ... Dalaney, 288 F. 421; Welsch v. Light & Power ... Co., 193 N.W. 427; Haas v. Power Co., 93 Wash ... 291; Power Co. v. Requena, 224 U.S. 89. (3) ... ...
  • Richardson v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 18, 1981
    ...34 Wash.2d 231, 208 P.2d 886 (1949); Scott v. Pacific Power and Light Co., 178 Wash. 647, 35 P.2d 749 (1934); Hass v. Washington Water Power Co., 93 Wash. 291, 160 P. 954 (1916); White v. Reservation Electric Co., 75 Wash. 139, 134 P. 807 (1913); Mayhew v. Yakima Power Co., 72 Wash. 431, 13......
  • Evans v. Oskaloosa Traction & Light Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1921
    ... ... The ... defendant owns and operates an electric line and power plant ... in the city of Oskaloosa, and among its patrons to whom it ... Power Co., 180 Iowa 1362, 163 N.W. 394. See, also, ... Haas v. Washington W. P. Co., 93 Wash. 291 (160 P ...           ... ...
  • Evans v. Oskaloosa Traction & Light Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1921
    ...Light Co., 117 Iowa, 451, 90 N. W. 818;Toney v. Interstate Power Co., 180 Iowa, 1362, 163 N. W. 394. See, also, Haas v. Washington Water Power Co., 93 Wash. 291, 160 Pac. 954. Negligence is the failure of one party to discharge its duty to another. Can it be said, under the facts disclosed,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT