Hudson v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.

Citation234 S.W. 869
Decision Date08 November 1921
Docket NumberNo. 16557.,16557.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
PartiesHUDSON v. UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; John W. McElhinney, Judge. "Not to be officially published."

Action by Elmer Hudson against the Union Electric Light & Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. E. L. Gardner, of Clayton, and John E. Drabelle, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Arthur V. Lushly, of St. Louis, for respondent.

ALLEN, P. J.

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company as a lineman, and alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defendant, Union Electric Light & Power Company. The trial below resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $3,500, and the defendant prosecutes the appeal.

On the day of his injury, to wit, September 22, 1917, plaintiff was engaged for said telephone company in removing rings from a "strand wire" on Swon avenue, in the city of Webster Groves, Mo. Swon avenue extends east and west, and is intersected by Elm avenue, extending north and south. A strand wire belonging to the telephone company had been strung along telephone poles on the south side of Swon avenue, which wire was originally used to support a lead cable containing wires, but about a week or two weeks prior to the date of plaintiff's injury, the cable had been removed, leaving attached to the strand wire the rings which had supported the cable. Plaintiff was engaged in removing these rings. The strand wire carried no current, but was simply a supporting wire, and was approximately 30 feet above the ground. Attached to the same poles, and a few feet below this strand wire, was a new lead cable belonging to the telephone company. This strand wire, it appears, was perhaps 1,000 or 1,200 feet in length; and while it was fastened firmly at the ends, it was normally fastened to the telephone pole at the southeast corner of Swan and Elm avenues, as well as to other intermediate telephone poles, by "spring messenger clamps" which held the wire in position so as not to allow it to move up or down on the pole, but which did not prevent it from slipping east or west. When the lead cable which had been attached to this strand wire was removed, as stated above, the strand wire was removed from its usual fastening on this pole at the southeast corner of Swon and Elm avenues, and was laid over a "step," i. e. a spike driven into the pole. Another spike was driven into the, pole above the wire in such manner as to fasten the wire to the pole, but to allow it to move east or west as though held by one of the clamps mentioned above. And the testimony it appears that, as thus fastened to the pole, the wire was two or three inches below the place where it had been previously fastened by the clamp. About this time, or shortly thereafter, the defendant ran one of its high voltage wires, termed a "primary," along Elm avenue, i. e. north and south, which passed above the telephone company's strand wire a short distance west of the pole mentioned, leaving a clearance between that wire and the strand wire of about eight inches. Thereafter, the telephone company sent a gang of men, of which respondent was a member, to take the rings from the old strand wire, remove that wire, and put into permanent position a new strand wire and cable which were then temporarily suspended about four feet below the old strand wire. It appears that the method used in performing this work was that customarily employed in such cases. Plaintiff sat in a "strand chair," made of gas pipe with a board for a seat, which was supported from the strand wire on rollers which ran along that wire. When in the chair plaintiff was about two feet below the strand wire; and he pulled the chair along by catching hold of the wire.

Shortly prior to his injury plaintiff started at the telephone pole standing at the southeast corner of Swon and Elm avenues and propelled himself west, on the strand wire, along the south side of Swon avenue, crossing Elm avenue, until he reached the pole standing at the southwest corner of those two streets. He then proceeded back eastwardly to the pole from which he had started, removed the strand chair from the strand wire, replaced it on the wire east of that pole, and proceeded east, removing the rings with a pair of pliers. In thus crossing and recrossing Elm avenue he passed beneath the defendant's primary wire extending north and south on Elm avenue. As he proceeded east of the pole mentioned, his weight, together with that of the chair in which he sat, pulled the slack out of the strand wire west of the Dole and caused it to come in contact with defendant's primary wire. Plaintiff reached a point about 15 feet east of the pole last mentioned when, upon taking hold of the strand wire for the purpose of propelling himself along, he received an electric shock caused by the escape of electric current from defendant's primary wire, which passed into the strand wire and thence through plaintiff's body, the circuit being completed by reason of the fact that the lineman's "spur" fastened to the calf of plaintiff's leg came in contact with the new lead cable beneath him which was "partially grounded." The shock rendered plaintiff unconscious, and he fell to the ground, sustaining, from the shock and burns and from the fall, the injuries for which he sues.

The evidence shows that defendant's primary wire, which came in contact with the strand wire, and from which escaped the current which caused plaintiff's injury, carried about 2,300 volts of electricity. And the primary wire was burned off at the point where it came in contact with the strand wire, and fell to the ground. The evidence further shows that it was practicable to insulate this primary wire, at the point where it crossed over the strand wire, by using a rubber hose, which would constitute a sufficient insulation to prevent the escape of the current; and that it was defendant's custom either to so insulate its high voltage wires, at points where they thus crossed wires of the telephone company, or to use "clearance arms" which would hold the wires "clear of contact." It is undisputed, however, that at this point defendant's primary wire was not insulated by a rubber hose or otherwise, nor was a clearance arm provided; but, as defendant's counsel admitted at the trial below, this wire was covered with a mere "weather stripping," which, it appears, was not intended or expected to act as an insulation so as to prevent the escape of the current.

The foregoing facts appear entirely from plaintiff's evidence. Defendant offered no testimony beyond that of a physician who had examined plaintiff.

It is earnestly contended that the trial court erred in refusing to peremptorily direct a verdict for defendant at the close of the entire case. This insistence proceeds, in the first instance, upon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Bunce, 1937
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 1 de dezembro de 1936
    ......v. Brodbeck, 151 N.E. 323; Fleegar v. Consumers. Power Company, (Mich.) 247 N.W. 741; Chester Company. v. Power & Light Company, (Wisc.) 247 N.W. 861. The mere. fact of an ... intervening act of Bunce himself. Seith v. Electric. Company, (Ill.) 89 N.E. 425; Staff v. Montana Pet. ... Bonniwell v. Milwaukee, (Wisc.) 182 N.W. 468;. Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Jarvi, 3 Wyo. 376. A person. injured ...299, Natural Gas Company, (Okla.). 247 P. 69; Hudson v. Power Company, (Mo.) 234 S.W. 869; Northwestern Gas ......
  • Hill v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 de dezembro de 1948
    ......Central Vermont Ry. Co., 319. U.S. 350; Ellis v. Union Pacific R. Co., 329 U.S. 649; Lavender v. Kurn, 327 ... its negligence. Hudson v. Union Electric L. & P. Co., 234 S.W. 869; Rueter v. ... reduced purchasing power of the current dollar and the. changing economic ...Later, respondent testified: "The. light had nothing to do with my accident, because I had my. ......
  • Consolidated School District v. Power Company, 29329.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 11 de fevereiro de 1932
    ...Power Co., 221 Mo. App. 644, 283 S.W. 705; Byerly v. Consolidated Power, Light & Ice Co., 130 Mo. App. 593; Hudson v. Union Electric Light & Power Co. (Mo. App.), 234 S.W. 869; Derrick v. Harwood Electric Co., 268 Pa. 136, 111 Atl. 48; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 268 Mo. 239, 187 S.W. 23; Far......
  • Smith v. Ozark Water Mills Co
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 11 de março de 1922
    ......Railroad. Co., 225 S.W. 1035; Shedron v. Light Co., 223. S.W. 760. (c) The petition charges decedent was ...Pryor, 195. Mo.App. 259, 190 S.W. 69; Gurley v. Power Co., 90. S.E. 543; Pickett v. Railroad, 117 N.W. 616, 53 ... consequence of his act or omission. [See Hudson v. Union. Elec. Light & Power Co., 234 S.W. 869, l. c. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT