Harris v. Indiana Gen. Serv. Co., No. 25847.

Docket NºNo. 25847.
Citation206 Ind. 351, 189 N.E. 410
Case DateMarch 09, 1934
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

206 Ind. 351
189 N.E. 410

HARRIS
v.
INDIANA GENERAL SERVICE CO.

No. 25847.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 9, 1934.


Appeal from Superior Court, Delaware County; Robert F. Murray, Judge.

Action by John A. Harris, by his next friend, against the Indiana General Service Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, with instructions.


[189 N.E. 411]

Transferred from Appellate Court under Burns' Ann. St. 1926, § 1351.

Lennington & Sons and Warner & Warner, all of Muncie, for appellant.

Silverburg, Bracken & Gray, of Muncie, for appellee.


ROLL, Chief Justice.

This action was brought by Ernest T. Harris, as next friend of John A. Harris, a minor, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the said John A. Harris, and alleged to have been caused by the wrongful and negligent acts of appellant.

The complaint is in one paragraph, to which the trial court sustained a demurrer for want of facts. Appellant refused to plead over, and judgment that he take nothing by his complaint was entered. Appellant assigned as error the sustaining of appellee's demurrer to the complaint, and that is the only question presented on this appeal.

The facts alleged in the complaint are, in substance, as follows:

That appellee is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling electricity for light and power purposes to the industries and citizens of Muncie and other cities and towns in Indiana. That at the time of the injury complained of the defendant maintained an electric line consisting of wires, poles, towers, insulators, cross-arms, and appliances, extending from defendant's power house in Muncie, Ind., in a northwesterly direction across Delaware and Madison counties to the city of Alexandria, and to other cities. That the line of steel towers, supporting three high-voltage, electric current carrying wires were erected upon a right of way owned by defendant which crossed the farm owned by Ernest T. Harris herein, and one of said towers was located near the center of said farm. The easement of appellee was in the usual form, and provided that appellee was to so use said right of way as not to prevent the owner of the premises from pasturing the same or from using the same for agriculture or other purposes not inconsistent with defendant's rights.

That the poles or towers are placed about 300 feet apart, and are constructed of steel set in concrete foundations. That said steel tower consists of two upright steel beams about 40 feet in length which stand about 8 feet apart at the base and about 4 feet apart at the top. That said upright steel beams were bound together by smaller crossbeams. The lowest of said crossbeams was about 30 inches from the ground, and a crossbeam was placed parallel with said lowest crossbeam and attached to each of said upright beams about every 5 feet from said lowest beam to the top of the tower. A brace rod extends from each end of each crossbeam diagonally to the opposite end of the next higher crossbeam. That at the point where the two lowest brace rods cross there was a sheet metal painted sign, about 8?x18? in size and had thereon the words, “Danger-High Voltage -Keep Off.”

The crossbeam at the top of the tower extends southerly from the tower about 38 inches. The crossbeam next below said top crossbeam extends northerly from the tower about 38 inches, and the crossbeam second below the top beam extends about 38 inches southerly from the tower. To the end of each of the three above described crossbeams there was attached by means of a metal fastener an insulator, and below the insulators there is attached by a metal fastening one of the three high-tension electric wires, which were not insulated in any way. Each of the three wires carried a current of electricity of 35,000 volts.

Attached to the more southerly of the two upright poles were metal steps about 18 inches apart and begin about 8 feet of the ground and extend to the top of the tower.

That said towers were constructed as aforesaid and the crossbeams, rods, etc., presented suitable handholds and footholds for one who might desire to climb said tower, and that said tower was so built and constructed that it presented an inviting appearance to children and youths, who might be at, near, or about said tower, and was calculated to attract children and youths to climb thereon, and was so constructed that children and

[189 N.E. 412]

youths might easily climb...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Plotzki v. Standard Oil Co. of Ind., No. 28638
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 2 Junio 1950
    ...192 Ind. 384, 389, 135 N.E. 334; Minardo v. State, 1932, 204 Ind. 422, 426, 183 N.E. 548; Harris v. Indiana General Service Co., 1934, 206 Ind. 351, 356, 189 N.E. 410; Kelley v. Dickerson, 1930, 213 Ind. 624, 633, 13 N.E.2d 535; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Reyher, 1939, 216 Ind. 545, 549, 24......
  • New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Mercantile Nat. Bank of Hammond, No. 19086
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 Marzo 1960
    ...of a legal duty owing, the failure to perform that duty, and injury resulting therefrom. Harris v. Indiana General Service Co., 1934, 206 Ind. 351, 356, 189 N.E. 410; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Foust, 1912, 53 Ind.App. 90, 99 N.E. 493; Indiana & C. Coal Co. v. Neal, 1906, 166 Ind......
  • Neal v. Home Builders, Inc., No. 29027
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 23 Marzo 1953
    ...to perform that duty; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff from such failure of the defendant. Harris v. Indiana General Service Co., 1934, 206 Ind. 351, 456, 189 N.E. 410; Pontiac-Chicago M. E. Co. v. Cassons & Son, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 248, 254, 34 N.E.2d The absence of any one of these eleme......
  • Petroski v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., No. 3--1274A201
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 22 Septiembre 1976
    ...lines safely insulated in places where the general public may come into contact with them. Harris v. Indiana General Service Co. (1934), 206 Ind. 351, 189 N.E. 410; Fort Wayne & Northern Ind. Traction Co. Stark (1920), 74 Ind.App. 669, 127 N.E.2d NIPSCO argues that it owed no duty to Steven......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Plotzki v. Standard Oil Co. of Ind., No. 28638
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 2 Junio 1950
    ...192 Ind. 384, 389, 135 N.E. 334; Minardo v. State, 1932, 204 Ind. 422, 426, 183 N.E. 548; Harris v. Indiana General Service Co., 1934, 206 Ind. 351, 356, 189 N.E. 410; Kelley v. Dickerson, 1930, 213 Ind. 624, 633, 13 N.E.2d 535; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Reyher, 1939, 216 Ind. 545, 549, 24......
  • New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Mercantile Nat. Bank of Hammond, No. 19086
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 Marzo 1960
    ...of a legal duty owing, the failure to perform that duty, and injury resulting therefrom. Harris v. Indiana General Service Co., 1934, 206 Ind. 351, 356, 189 N.E. 410; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Foust, 1912, 53 Ind.App. 90, 99 N.E. 493; Indiana & C. Coal Co. v. Neal, 1906, 166 Ind......
  • Neal v. Home Builders, Inc., No. 29027
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 23 Marzo 1953
    ...to perform that duty; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff from such failure of the defendant. Harris v. Indiana General Service Co., 1934, 206 Ind. 351, 456, 189 N.E. 410; Pontiac-Chicago M. E. Co. v. Cassons & Son, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 248, 254, 34 N.E.2d The absence of any one of these eleme......
  • Petroski v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., No. 3--1274A201
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 22 Septiembre 1976
    ...lines safely insulated in places where the general public may come into contact with them. Harris v. Indiana General Service Co. (1934), 206 Ind. 351, 189 N.E. 410; Fort Wayne & Northern Ind. Traction Co. Stark (1920), 74 Ind.App. 669, 127 N.E.2d NIPSCO argues that it owed no duty to Steven......
  • 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