Hayes v. Southern Power Co.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1913
• Citation: 78 S.E. 956,95 S.C. 230
• Parties: HAYES v. SOUTHERN POWER CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

78 S.E. 956

95 S.C. 230

HAYES v. SOUTHERN POWER CO. et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 14, 1913

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; T. S. Sease Judge.

Action by Walker Hayes, by his guardian ad litem, T. W. Huey against the Southern Power Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

T. F McDow, of Yorkville, H. C. Millar, of Charlotte, N. C., J. E. McDonald, of Winnsboro, and Osborne & Cocke, of Charlotte, N. C., for appellants. Dunlap & Dunlap, of Rock Hill, and S.E. McFadden, of Chester, for respondent.

FRASER J.

The appellants thus state their case:

"This was an action in the court of common pleas for York county, S. C., to recover the sum of $30,000 damages for alleged injuries to plaintiff, a minor, by coming in contact with electric wires in a transformer house, located on the property of the defendant the Manchester Mills.

"It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant Southern Power Company is a corporation engaged in furnishing electricity to various industries and, among others, to the Manchester Cotton Mills. That the said Southern Power Company built, or had built, with the permission and consent of the Manchester Cotton Mills, the trans former house in question under an agreement to furnish electric power to said cotton mills. The specific and particular allegations of negligence alleged to have been the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries are found in the ninth paragraph of the complaint, and they charge the defendants with separate, joint, or concurrent negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and wantonness in the following particulars, to wit:

"(a) In erecting and allowing to be erected the said transformer house, and installing therein dangerous machinery, appliances, apparatus, and electric wires, heavily charged with electricity, and in not providing safe and proper means to protect the public and said infant from the dangers thereof; and the said defendant Southern Power Company, its agents and servants, knowing that in and around said house children of tender years and ignorant of the dangers of said machinery, apparatus, appliances, and electric wires, and being accustomed, did visit and play, being attracted to said house by the said appliances hereinbefore alleged; the said defendant Southern Power Company left the doors and windows of said house open and unprotected, thereby giving said children and this infant opportunity to be subjected to said dangerous machinery, apparatus, etc., heretofore alleged; and the Manchester Cotton Mills, its agents, servants, and officers, knew, or ought to have known, that said doors and windows were open and unprotected, and knew that the said house contained dangerous machinery, apparatus, etc., heretofore alleged, and that there were children of tender years, including said infant, attending said public school, and that said children, including the said infant, frequently visited and played around and near said house, with the knowledge and acquiescence of both of said defendants.

"(b) That the said house and the said danger, apparatus, appliances, etc., heretofore alleged, were under the control and manage ment of the defendants, Southern Power Company and the Manchester Cotton Mills, the said transformer house and the said

schoolhouse on the property of the defendant the Manchester Cotton Mills, and the agents, servants, and officers, of the said the Manchester Cotton Mills, constantly used said house in getting the electricity to drive and operate its said machinery."

The answer of the defendant the Manchester Cotton Mills consists of: (a) A denial of the material allegations of the complaint; (b) that plaintiff's injuries were caused by his act and negligence; and (c) that he was a trespasser on the premises of the defendant.

"The answer of the defendant Southern Power Company contains similar defenses. The case was tried at the November, 1912 term of the court for York county, before Judge Thomas S. Sease and a jury. At the close of the testimony for the plaintiff, the defendants made a motion for a nonsuit. *** This motion was overruled by the presiding judge. At the close of all of the testimony, defendants made a motion for the direction of a verdict in their favor, upon the grounds. *** This motion was also refused by the presiding judge. After hearing the charge of the presiding judge, the jury found a separate verdict against each of the defendants for the sum of $4,166.67. The defendants thereupon made a motion for a new trial which was also refused by the presiding judge. Thereafter judgment on the separate verdicts was entered against each of the defendants. Due notice of appeal was served. ***

"Argument.

"The following facts appear to be undisputed in this case: That the plaintiff was severely burned and injured by coming in contact with the electric wires in the transformer house, located on the property of the defendant the Manchester Mills. At what time this transformer was built, it does not clearly appear from the testimony. It appears that the plaintiff, a little boy, nine years of age, lived on the property of the Manchester Mills and for several months had been attending school in a building near the transformer house. During the recess hours the children were accustomed to play in the neighborhood of the transformer house, sometimes at one place and sometimes at another. It appears that the Manchester Mills were principally in control of the transformer house, although the agents and servants of defendant Southern Power Company occasionally visited it for the purpose of making necessary repairs in the electrical apparatus. The transformer house itself is a brick building, having a door and three windows. Across the windows are slats about 2 1/2 inches wide nailed on at intervals of about 2 or 3 inches. The windows each had 2 sashes with 6 lights in each sash, of about 10 by 12 inches each. The electric power wires were located in this house, near one of the windows, about 5 or 6 feet from the ground. These windows were located too high for the plaintiff to come in contact with the wires when standing on the ground.

"The plaintiff and other children had been warned not to go near the transformer house on account of the danger connected therewith.

"There were two panes of glass out of the lower sash of the window where the power wires were located, but this fact had no connection with the injury to plaintiff, as the windows were raised, and hence the broken panes of glass were not within reach.

"On the day plaintiff received his injuries, he, with two or three other small boys, at the noon recess, went to the transformer house, and when first seen after his injury had his knee in the window and was hanging out by his hand. His hand was through the window touching the wires. In his own account of how he received the injury, the plaintiff stated that the other little boys had told him if he touched the wire it would make him jump and dance.

"As shown by the testimony, therefore, it was necessary that the plaintiff should climb up in the window, place his hand between the slat and under the window, before he could touch the wires or come in contact with...