Hipple v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Pottsville
| Decision Date | 24 March 1913 |
| Docket Number | 59 |
| Citation | 240 Pa. 91,87 A. 297 |
| Parties | Hipple v. Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Pottsville, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 17, 1913
Appeal, No. 59, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Schuylkill Co., July T., 1909, No. 280, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Catharine Hipple v. The Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Pottsville. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff's husband. Before BRUMM, J.
At the trial it appeared that the deceased was killed on June 25 1908, while at work as a lineman of a telephone company. The circumstances of the accident are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Defendant presented the following points:
1. The uncontradicted evidence in the case is that the plaintiff's husband received an electric shock whilst climbing a telephone pole on East Norwegian street in Pottsville during the afternoon of June 25th, 1908, which shock caused him to fall to the ground and that he received such serious injuries from the fall that he died the same afternoon.
2. The uncontradicted evidence is that the plaintiff's husband was a person acquainted with the work he was engaged in, and there is no evidence to show that he was not fully competent to do the work properly.
Answer -- The first and second points we decline to affirm and do not think it necessary to read them, because they treat exclusively of what the defendant says is the evidence, and we leave the evidence all to the jury -- It is for you to say what the evidence is, and base your verdict on the instructions by the court upon that evidence. (1-2)
6. The uncontradicted evidence is that in climbing said pole it was not necessary for the climber to get into contact with any of the defendant's wires and all of said wires of the defendant could be avoided by the exercise of proper care.
Answer. The fourth, the fifth and the sixth points we decline to affirm for the same reasons given as to the first and second that is, that they are declarations of the defendant as to what the evidence is, and we repeat here, we leave that entirely to the jury. (3)
13. The evidence is that the deceased was working among highly charged electric wires without gloves, and in so doing negligence must be imputed to him, and the verdict must be for the defendant.
Answer. We decline to affirm this point and we say that there is no evidence here that would in any possible way show that with the use of gloves this accident might have been avoided, no evidence to show that he was burned on the hands, that he ever came in contact with a live wire with the hands. On the contrary all the evidence that there is here on this point shows or tends to show that it would have encumbered him, that under the conditions it would have made it more dangerous to have had gloves than not to have had them. (4)
12. The plaintiff has not proven the defendant's negligence and the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.
Answer. We decline to affirm this. (6)
14. Under all the evidence in the case the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.
Answer. We decline to affirm this. (7)
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $5,260. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were (1-4, 6-7), above instructions, quoting them.
Judgment affirmed.
Guy E. Farquhar, with him Otto E. Farquhar, for appellant. -- It was the duty of the telephone company to furnish a safe place for its employee to work, and if it so placed and maintained its pole that an uninsulated wire made it dangerous for its employees to climb the pole, it was its duty to take the necessary steps to protect its employees: Combs v. Telegraph & Telephone Co., 218 Pa. 440.
The danger in the case at bar was created by the telephone company so erecting its pole as to come in contact with the electric wire and the telephone company alone was liable: Reed v. Norristown Elec. Light & Power Co., 223 Pa. 591.
If Hipple looked for the wires, and then came in contact with them he was guilty of contributory negligence and if he did not look he was likewise guilty: Wier v. Electric Light Co., 221 Pa. 611; Hart v. Allegheny County Light Co., 201 Pa. 234.
Geo. M. Roads, with him R. A. Freiler, for appellee, cited: Morgan v. Electric Co., 213 Pa. 151; Alexander v. Nanticoke Light Co., 209 Pa. 571; Berstein v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 235 Pa. 53; Turton v. Powelton Electric Co., 185 Pa. 406; Combs v. Telegraph & Telephone Co., 218 Pa. 440; Frantz v. Citizens' Electric Co., 231 Pa. 589.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
In 1889 the defendant company...
To continue reading
Request your trial