Hughes v. Southwestern Gas & Electric Co

• Decision Date: 20 July 1932
• Docket Number: 31529
• Citation: 143 So. 281,175 La. 336
• Parties: HUGHES et al. v. SOUTHWESTERN GAS & ELECTRIC CO
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

143 So. 281

175 La. 336

HUGHES et al. v. SOUTHWESTERN GAS & ELECTRIC CO

No. 31529

Supreme Court of Louisiana

July 20, 1932

Wilkinson, Lewis, Wilkinson & Burford, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Jackson & Smith, C. B. Prothro, and Barksdale, Bullock, Warren, Clark & Van Hook, all of Shreveport, for appellees.

OPINION

ST.PAUL, J.

Having attentively heard the arguments of counsel, and long and carefully considered the record and studied the briefs herein, we can find no manifest error of fact or of law in the conclusions reached by the district judge, or see wherein we can make any other and more correct disposition of the case than that made by him.His opinion, which we adopt, is as follows:

Opinion of the District Judge.

Plaintiffs bring this suit to recover a total sum of $ 18,050, damages itemized as follows:

Store building, etc.

$ 2,500.00

Stock of merchandise

2,500.00

Store Fun. & Fixt. as itemized

900.00

Furnishings in bed rooms and kitchen

500.00

Wearing apparel, watch, jewelry, etc.

100.00

Abstracts of title to lands

1,500.00

One bale of cotton

50.00

Notes, accounts, etc.

10,000.00

Total

$ 18,050.00

They allege that prior to and until his death W Clark Hughes was engaged in farming, ginning, and other things and owned, in community with Annie Oliver Hughes, a general store on the east side of the Bossier-Benton Highway and an interest in a gin on the west side of the highway opposite the store; that defendant is engaged in generating transmitting, and selling electricity for power, heating, and lighting, and maintained and operated a generating plant at or near Shreveport, and a system of poles, wires, and devices along the public highway between Bossier City and Benton over and through which it transmitted electric current of high voltage, dangerous to and destructive of life and property, with secondary wires connected thereto for diverting and transmitting lower voltage for industrial and domestic uses by and through which it supplied electricity for power and light in the gin and lights in the store; that on August 29, 1930, without warning, defendant negligently permitted electric current of high voltage, dangerous to and destructive of life and property, to escape, and as a proximate result of defendant's negligence in the construction, maintenance, and operation of its electrical plant and distribution system, electric current of high voltage did escape into, upon, along, and through the secondary wires and devices that connected the high-voltage line with the buildings before mentioned, and into, upon, along, and through said buildings, which charged them and all structures attached and adjacent to them with dangerous and destructive electric current and set them on fire; that the said W. Clark Hughes without knowledge that the buildings, etc., were charged with electricity, in an effort to obtain water to put on the fire reached for the faucet on the cistern and was instantly killed; that defendant was informed of the perilous situation by telephone messages to its office and plant and otherwise, before the fire had caused appreciable property loss, and that in the exercise of proper care and prudence it should have cut off the current, in which event the property could have been saved, but that it negligently failed to do so, and allowed high-voltage current to escape for approximately an hour after notice, and completely destroyed the store and all contents and one bale of cotton on the outside; that the store and contents were insured for $ 1,700, which has been paid to the other petitioners by the insurance company and assigned and subrogated their claims for damages to said company; that the petitioners have suffered damages in the amount heretofore set forth, for which they should have judgment.

To this petition defendants first filed a plea to the jurisdiction ratione personae, which was overruled.Defendant then filed a plea of vagueness to certain paragraphs of the petition, which was answered in an amended petition, and the plea overruled with reservation of a bill of exceptions by defendant.A motion to strike out was then filed and overruled, after which defendant answered denying the substantial allegations of the petitions.It specially denies that it was guilty of and negligence or fault of any kind in the construction, maintenance, or operation of its properties, and avers that its primary and secondary wires, transformers, wires, and other equipment and appliances, and particularly that used in serving the store and gin, and other equipment in that vicinity, were carefully and properly operated and were constructed and maintained according to standard specifications commonly in use by others engaged in such business, and that all its equipment was in good order at the time of the occurrence described in plaintiff's petition.

Further answering, defendant says that one of the customers of the Hughes gin carelessly and negligently drove a wagon and team into a guy wire supporting the transformer pole, and in an effort to extricate the wagon, by continual jerking and pulling of the horses hitched to the wagon, the top of the pole began to sway, producing a swinging motion in the high and low voltage wires, causing them to come together, all without any fault or negligence of defendant.

It alleges that immediately on being notified of the existence of the fire, it dispatched its employees with great haste to the scene of the fire and the electric current was forthwith disconnected, but the fire was under such headway that it could not be extinguished, and denies any responsibility for the fire.That the accident would not have occurred but for the negligence of the customer operating the team and wagon, and that it was unable to foresee such wrongful conduct on the part of the driver of the wagon, and that deceased, his agents and employees, were negligent in permitting the driver of the wagon to trespass upon and damage defendant's property.

Further answering, it says it had nothing to do with wiring the store and gin, and that deceased in his application expressly assumed all responsibility for the writing of his said store and all appliances and was to keep them in good condition, at his own expense, and further obligated himself to give notice in writing of any defect in equipment, and defendant, on information and belief, alleges that the building was improperly wired, and had defective insulation, etc., which were unknown to it, and that but for these defects and the negligence of the driver of the wagon, the fire would not have occurred.

Three hundred and nine pages of oral testimony has been taken in the case, and several documents filed in evidence.The case has been argued orally and exhaustive briefs filed by both plaintiffs and defendant.

It is hardly possible to review all this testimony in detail.There is no dispute that defendant was serving the gin with power to gin and pack cotton, and the gin and store with lights.The lights for the gin, store, and Burt dwelling were all furnished from one transformer located on a pole on the east side of the highway.The power for the gin was furnished by the primary wires being strung across the highway and the railroad to a pole near the gin on which was located transformers for reducing the voltage to what was required for power for the gin, probably 220 or 230 volts.The lights for the gin were furnished by stringing the secondary or low-voltage wires between the same poles, 2 feet below primary or high-voltage wires.The plaintiffs claim that it was negligence to string the wires only 2 feet apart.The poles were about 184 feet apart, and the testimony is that the sag in the wires would, or should be, about 30 inches, to allow for contraction and expansion.T. J Caldwell, assessor of Bossier parish, who, together with his wife, and Mr. and Mrs. John Doles, were on the way from Benton to Shreveport and had reached a little north of the Burt residence when he saw a flash which he first thought to be lighting, but when it flashed the second time he thought the gin was on fire.When he reached the Burt dwelling, smoke was boiling up around the light pole nearest to it and also in the garage.When he got to the Hughes store, smoke was boiling up at the southeast corner of it, and Mr. Hughes came out and threw a bucket of water on what he thought was the fire and then tried to telephone defendant to cut off the current, but the telephone was out, and in a short time he was killed, apparently while trying to get water from the cistern to put on the fire.Caldwell says it was about 6 o'clock when he reached the store, anyway it was way before dark.He helped move some cotton.He says that he had been there probably ten minutes when Mr. Hughes was killed, and at that time it was quite a bit before dark.Smoke was coming from the eaves in front and from the gutter pipe, and there was a gas pipe coming through under the cistern and extending the whole length of the store, and about dark that pipe began to get quite hot.It would flare up and then go completely out, kept up probably fifteen or twenty minutes, and then the light wire going into the house would get quite hot.Seemed like the water falls at the fair shooting sparks down from it.It was way after dark when the store finally blazed, and it was only fifteen or twenty minutes until it had fallen in.He says it was forty-five minutes to an hour after Doles left for Vanceville before the store actually blazed.He says it was about an hour and five minutes after Mr. Hughes was killed before any one from defendant's plant or office came to the scene; from the evidence it seems that Mr. Spencer had carried the body to Shreveport and returned to the scene...