Hemphill v. Mississippi Power Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 7871.,7871. |
| Citation | 84 F.2d 971 |
| Parties | HEMPHILL v. MISSISSIPPI POWER CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Sidney C. Mize, of Gulfport, Miss., for appellant.
C. C. Miller, of Meridian, Miss., and Barney Eaton, Jr., and B. E. Eaton, both of Gulfport, Miss., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant brought this suit to recover damages caused by the wrecking of his automobile in a collision with a pole belonging to appellee, which carried electric transmission wires. Error is assigned to the direction of a verdict at the close of the evidence.
The complainant substantially alleges that defendant had a large number of poles set on what is known as the Pass Christian Road between Gulfport and Biloxi; that, at a point about one mile east of Handsboro, defendant had negligently set a pole at the edge of the highway so that it was a dangerous obstruction; that at a distance of approximately 200 feet east of said point there is a little ravine, over which is a small bridge; that immediately after crossing this bridge the highway curves to the right; that the highway is known as a black top road, and this particular curve is oval or turtle-shaped, and had been for a long time; that the post had been there for many months; that on the day the accident occurred, in October, 1932, plaintiff was driving an automobile on the highway and as he came around the curve driving in a westerly direction, he crossed the bridge, causing the car to skid slightly and before he could right the car it ran into the light pole. As he came around the curve and crossed the bridge there were flashes of light coming from electric wires that were broken and hanging on the ground, which wires belonged to defendant and were emitting flashes of light, which so blinded him that he could barely see where the road was and could not see the pole as it was almost the color of the black top road. Plaintiff's testimony tends to sustain these allegations except that he did not know what caused the flash he said blinded him.
It is alleged that it was negligence on the part of defendant to place the pole in the position it occupied and permit the wires to become broken so that they would emit flashes of light and obstruct the view of the driver of an automobile.
Undisputed evidence shows that the road is not a dedicated highway, is not over 24 feet in width, and the black top surface is about 16 feet in width; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. Commerce Tankers Corp.
...motion is directed." 65A C.J.S. Negligence § 251(6), p. 792; Pickering v. Corson, 108 F.2d 546 (7th Cir. 1940); Hemphill v. Mississippi Power Co., 84 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1936). BURDEN OF PROOF In a personal injury suit the burden of proving defendant's negligence is on plaintiff. In Martin v......
-
Vines v. Southwestern Mississippi Elec. Power Ass'n
...denied where another is killed outright in the collision with the pole. The Manuel and Sellers cases were followed in Hemphill v. Mississippi Power Co., 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 971; Fiechter v. City of Corbin, 254 Ky. 178, 71 S.W.2d 423; Clayborn v. Tennessee Electric Power Co., 20 Tenn.App. 594, 1......
-
W.U. Tel. Co. v. Perry
... ... of her automobile with one of appellant's telegraph poles ... in Mississippi City, an unincorporated village in Harrison ... County. She was driving the car. On her recovery ... Section 1506, Code 1930, ... was the basis of decision in Mississippi Power Co. v ... Sellers, 160 Miss. 512, 133 So. 594. The pole of the ... appellant there was not ... they had a right to establish and maintain it ... In ... Hemphill v. Mississippi Power Co., 5 Cir., 84 F.2d ... 971, where the events occurred in Mississippi, the ... ...