Hollis v. Kansas City Light & Power Co.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 13637.,13637. |
| Citation | 224 S.W. 158,204 Mo. App. 297 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HOLLIS v. KANSAS CITY LIGHT & POWER CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Daniel E. Bird, Judge.
Action by Bertha D. Hollis against the Kansas City Light & Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Johnson & Lucas and Wm. C. Lucas, all of Kansas City, for appellant.
Gamble, Kennard & Trusty, of Kansas City, for respondent.
Plaintiff's action is for damages on account of the death of her husband, who was killed on August 10, 1917, by one of defendant's wires charged with a heavy current of electricity. Judgment for $6,000 was obtained, and defendant has appealed.
Deceased was foreman over, and the engineer in charge of and operating a steam shovel in, defendant's coalyard, situated on the south side of and immediately adjoining Guinotte avenue in Kansas City, Mo. Said avenue runs east and west, and double street car tracks are in the center thereof, the north one being the west-bound, and the south the east-bound, track. The avenue was 60 feet wide from property line to property line, and the roadway thereof, 36 feet in width, was brick-paved and curbed, thus leaving south of the south curb a sidewalk space of 12 feet, but at the time and place in question no sidewalk had been constructed thereon. The east end of the coalyard was bounded by a north and south switch track of the C. & A. Railroad; and a short distance west of and parallel to this railway track was an unconnected, independent track on which the steam' shovel stood and was moved along thereon to various points necessary to reach the coal desired to be shoveled. As stated, this steam shovel track was not connected with any other track, but began at some point in the southern part of the coalyard and went north (possibly 220 feet) to a point from 3 to 6 feet south of the curb line on Guinotte avenue. The coal was piled on both sides of this short piece of shovel track, but the far greater rick was on the east side thereof, and the pile of coal went north up to Guinotte avenue, and, as we gather from the record, extended over, into, and on the sidewalk space thereof. Defendant's coal coming in on the C. & A. Railroad was dumped on the ground so as to form yard on the Y hereinafter described, and partly to transfer it from the pile on the east of the shovel track to the pile on the west side thereof. This steam shovel consisted of a flat car, on which was mounted a turntable, having thereon an engine which, by steam power under the control of the engineer, operated a crane, or "boom," 46 feet long, front the end of which hung the shovel, or "clam shell," suspended by a cable running over a pulley. The power of the engine could be used either to move the flat car forward or backward on the shovel track, or in turning the crane around from front to back, or from side to side on the turntable, or in raising and lowering the crane in the filling and emptying of the +clam shell. On Guinotte avenue were a number of electric and telephone wires; and at a point almost due north of the north end of the shovel track, and about eight inches south of the south curb line on Guinotte avenue (and therefore in the sidewalk space), were two and perhaps three poles, on one of which was a wire of defendant's carrying a current of 2,300 volts of electricity. This wire was perhaps 20 feet from the ground, and after coming west to said pole continued on west a distance of about 122 feet, at the same height above the ground and just south of the curb line, to a pole located about the same distance south of the curb line as the other one. About 12 feet east of this pole was a dedicated alley the north end of which, at the south edge of the paved roadway of the avenue, was marked by the curb turning south in rounded corners and proceeding south for a few feet, and into this mouth the paving extended south for a short distance. In this paved portion of the alley, and about 10 feet south of the mouth thereof, was a manhole fitted with an iron lid. About 12 or 13 feet east of the alley and close to the curb line stood another pole carrying some kind of a wire presumably a telephone wire. And on the northern street car track, at a point north of the alley, a switch track started in a curve to the southeast until it finally reached a point in the coalyard where it turned due south and went on to some unknown distance therein. The point where this curved switch cut the south curb line of Guinotte avenue was a little over 17 feet east of where the last-mentioned pole stood. On the south street car track, at a point practically north of the north end of the shovel track and of the first pole herein above mentioned, a similar switch started in a curve to the southwest, joining the other curved switch in the coalyard at the point where they both went south, the two curved switches thus forming a Y by means of which a car on the south street car track could go east past the east switch, then back around to the southwest, and south on the coalyard, and be loaded with coal, and then go forward to the north and west, on the west prong of the Y, and get upon the west-bound track, thus leaving the coal yard in that manner. It was 59 feet from the first pole hereinabove mentioned west to the west prong of the Y.
The deceased had been a locomotive engineer, and since the previous March had operated defendant's electric crane or shovel, but the night before the tragedy a steam shovel had been moved out to the yard to be used in its place. This, however, does not appear to be a matter of great importance as a steam crane and an electric crane are "handled similarly," the former having perhaps a few more levers. Deceased, as engineer of said crane, had an assistant named Hunt, and the two handled the steam shovel and did the work of shoveling the coal.
About 7 o'clock in the morning of August 10, 1917, deceased and his assistant, preparatory to begin shoveling coal, started to move the steam shovel north along its track in order to place it at the spot desired. It was slightly downgrade to the north on the shovel track. The crane or boom, slanting upwards, was pointed north, and, before starting to move the shovel, deceased did not turn the crane around to the south; and in the course of the movement of the shovel north the huge machine got beyond control, and the helper, seeing this, jumped off to get a railroad tie to "chock" or block it. Before he could find the tie and do this, the machine ran north along the track until the crane, sticking up northward into the air and in front of the machine, touched or ran into the wire hereinabove specifically described as running from the pole near the north end of the shovel track west 122 feet to the pole west of the aforesaid alley mouth. The contact of the steel boom with the wire formed a circuit, and the wire burned in two. This occurred at a point about 2 feet west of the pole standing at the north end of the shovel track and the portion of the wire, running west to the west pole, fell across another wire, and then slid off of same and fell to the ground. In this position it ran from the top of the pole west of the alley mouth down to the ground in an easterly direction across the alley, over the manhole, past the pole standing 12 feet east of the alley, and then curved out in a northeasterly direction across the west prong of the aforesaid Y, and then turned north and west and then back around to the southwest toward the last-mentioned pole again, thus forming a sort of loop running across the sidewalk space and out into the paved roadway over the said west prong of the "Y" and back again.
When the crane broke the wires and this one fell, deceased backed the machine to the south and out of the wires and stopped, then got off the machine and walked over to a point close to the pole 12 feet east of the alley and there, facing north, stooped over and picked up the wire with one hand; be straightened up, took hold of it with the other hand, and when he did this, having the wire in both hands, exclaimed, "Oh!" and fell forwards on his face. Two men, walking east along the north side of Guinotte avenue, saw the occurrence, and ran over to him, calling for the assistant at the crane. A dry board was secured, and with it the deceased's body was turned over, and the wire pushed away from him and pulled through his hands. He was dead. The point where he picked up the wire was about 1 foot from the curb, and about 75 feet distant from and west of the crane. He took hold of the wire a: short distance from the end thereof.
Plaintiff's evidence as to the tragedy consists of the two men who were walking east at the time as above stated; and the first they saw of the entire occurrence was when deceased was walking west, about 6 feet from the curbing, toward the point where he picked up the wire and was electrocised. Plaintiff's evidence reveals nothing occurring prior to that time, nothing relative to the burning in two or breaking of the wire or of anything else until deceased started and was on his way to the fatal spot.
The attempted "spotting" or placing of the machine further north, its getting beyond deceased's control because the brakes failed to work in some way, the running of the boom into and breaking of the wires, all came from defendant's witness Hunt, deceased's assistant. It was, however, elicited on cross-examination of one of plaintiff's witnesses that at the time of the tragedy the steam shovel was standing with its crane to the north, and, as Hunt says deceased moved the shovel north along the track toward Guinotte avenue, and the wire, with the crane or boom pointing north, it must be taken as conceded that the crane was so pointing as the machine was being moved north.
According to defendant's evidence, deceased's orders were, whenever he had occasion to move the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridges v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co.
...Mo.App. 644, 283 S.W. 705, 709(7, 9); Hesser v. City of Carthage, 216 Mo.App. 140, 256 S.W. 161, 162(1); Hollis v. Kansas City Light & Power Co., 204 Mo.App. 297, 224 S.W. 158, 164(7); Faris v. Lawrence Co. Water, Light & Cold Storage Co., Mo.App., 198 S.W. 449(1, 2); Mahaney v. City of Ind......
-
Thompson v. City of Lamar
...Co., 151 Mo. App. 207. (3) The question of the contributory negligence, if any, of the respondent, was purely one for the jury. Hollis v. Light Co., 224 S.W. 158; Smith v. L.H. & P. Co., 276 S.W. 607; Solomon v. L. & P. Co., 262 S.W. 367; Sanders v. Carthage, 9 S.W. (2d) 813. (4) Where ther......
-
Shannon v. Kansas City Light & Power Company
...The petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but stated mere conclusions of the pleader. Hollis v. Light & Power Co., 204 Mo.App. 297. The only possible theory of the petition was the attractive nuisance, which is not recognized in this sort of a case in Miss......
-
Thompson v. City of Lamar
... ... negligence in the operation of their electric light plants ... Secs. 9111, 9119, R. S. 1919. (2) The testimony of ... 639; ... Cross v. Coal Co., 186 S.W. 528; Ratliff v ... Power Co., 203 S.W. 235. (b) An instruction which covers ... the entire case ... purely one for the jury. Hollis v. Light Co., 224 ... S.W. 158; Smith v. L. H. & P. Co., 276 S.W. 607; ... It was ... therefore held by the Kansas City Court of Appeals that the ... cause of decedent's fall was purely ... ...