Harter v. Colfax Elec. Light & Power Co.
| Decision Date | 13 July 1904 |
| Parties | HARTER v. COLFAX ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; W. G. Clements, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages resulting from injuries sustained by plaintiff in coming in contact with an electric light wire and lamp in the bathroom of a hotel at Colfax, Iowa. The case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.G. M. Tripp, for appellant.
The action was originally brought against the defendant and one Martha Croft, who it is claimed owned a hotel in Colfax known as the “Mason House,” and operated in connection therewith the bathroom in which plaintiff claims he received his injury. The verdict was against both these defendants, but the trial court sustained a motion for a new trial as to defendant Croft, and rendered judgment against the electric light and power company alone, and the appeal is by that company.
The negligence charged is that defendants, and each of them, carelessly and negligently suffered and permitted the said electric light wires and the lamp attached thereto to be insecurely fastened to the ceiling of the room in which said injury occurred, and in using and permitting the use of the wires as aforesaid, the same being unsuitable and unsafe by reason of defective insulation; that said defendants, and each of them, were further negligent in not keeping the fastenings of the lamp and the wires connected therewith in good repair and of sufficient strength for the purposes for which they were used; in permitting the said wires to become of inadequate strength and unsafe for the purpose for which they were used; in carrying and permitting to be carried over said wires dangerous currents of electricity, without having said wires properly insulated; in failing to exercise reasonable care in seeing that said wires and the fastenings thereof were kept in good repair and in a safe condition, in that said wires and said fastenings were originally insufficient, unsuitable, improper, dangerous, and unfit for use, and were so known to the defendants and each of them.” The trial court submitted the questions of insecure fastening of the electric light wire to the ceiling of the bathroom and the passage of a dangerous current of electricity over improperly insulated wires to the jury, and said, in effect, that if the wires and lamps in the bathroom were not safely and properly insulated or secured, and defendant conducted a dangerous current of electricity over and through said wires, knowing the dangerous character of the current, and that if such wires and lamps fell upon and injured the plaintiff, then the defendant company would be guilty of negligence, notwithstanding the wires and fixtures were not owned by the company. It also instructed that from the fact that the accident occurred, and the nature thereof, the presumption arose that the defendant was guilty of negligence, and that the burden was upon the defendant to rebut such presumption. Plaintiff testified that he went to the bathroom to take a bath, and that after he had undressed, and while standing under the electric light wire, it fell down upon him, burned his back, his hands, and his feet, and gave him a shock which rendered him unconscious. He said that the floor was wet and sloppy, and that his body was covered with perspiration. He did not know of his own knowledge how the wire was fastened to the ceiling, nor did he pretend to speak of the character of the insulation upon the wires. This, in addition to testimony as to extent of character of plaintiff's injuries, and some opinions of experts regarding the character of electricity necessary to produce such injuries as plaintiff complained of, was practically all there was to his case. True, he introduced one witness who was in the room the second day after the alleged accident, and saw the electric wire lying on the floor of the bathroom, and who about 10 days afterward was in the bathroom again, and took hold of a wire he found there, and felt the effects of electricity, but who said that the wire was the kind ordinarily used for electric lighting purposes. The defendant's evidence showed that the bathroom was in charge of a man by the name of James, who rented the same from the Crofts. The defendant also produced the electric light wire which was in the bathroom when it is claimed plaintiff was injured, and showed that it was all properly insulated. It also showed that it did not furnish the wire or fixtures for the Mason Hotel, and that they belonged to the proprietors thereof. It further showed that its system was such as to require transformers or converters; that it had one at the Mason House, properly equipped, which reduced the current from 1,100 volts on the primary wires to 52 on the secondary, which ran from the transformer into the hotel; that this transformer was in good condition; and that it had no knowledge of defects of any kind in the wiring of the hotel.
It is shown beyond controversy that, if such a current as the primary wires carried had been conveyed...
To continue reading
Request your trial