Indianapolis Power & Light Co. v. Moore

Decision Date17 December 1936
Docket NumberNo. 15135.,15135.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court
PartiesINDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT CO. v. MOORE.

103 Ind.App. 521
5 N.E.2d 118

INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT CO.
v.
MOORE.

No. 15135.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

December 17, 1936.


Appeal from Hendricks Circuit Court; A. J. Stevenson, Judge.

Action by Urban Moore against the Indianapolis Power & Light Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

[5 N.E.2d 118]

Edgar M. Blessing and Otis E. Gulley, both of Danville, and White, Wright & Boleman and Herman L. McCray, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

S. A. Clinehens, Harry T. Ice, and Matson, Ross, McCord & Clifford, all of Indianapolis, for appellee.


LAYMON, Judge.

This is an action by appellee against appellant to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligent acts of the appellant. The complaint was in one paragraph, to which the appellant filed a motion to make more specific. This motion was overruled. A demurrer was thereafter filed to the complaint, and the demurrer was also overruled. An answer in general denial was then filed by the appellant, closing the issues. Trial was had before a jury resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee and against the appellant. A motion for a new trial was filed, which motion was overruled, and the appellant now prosecutes this appeal, assigning as errors: (1) That the court erred in overruling appellant's motion to make the complaint

[5 N.E.2d 119]

more specific; (2) that the court erred in overruling appellant's demurrer to complaint; (3) that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial alleging (a) that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (b) that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law; (c) that the court erred in its rulings on admission and rejection of certain evidence; (d) that the court erred in giving and refusing to give certain instructions.

[1] The complaint in part is as follows:

“That on the eighth of January, 1931, and for a long time prior thereto, the said defendant owned and operated an electric power plant on Washington Avenue, in the city of Indianapolis; that at said power plant they generated electricity, which was used by manufacturing concerns and private home owners in the city of Indianapolis; that one of the companies purchasing electric energy generated by said defendant was the Acme-Evans Milling Company, that said company operated a flour mill in a building which was located near the power plant of the defendant herein.

“Plaintiff further says that on the 8th day of January, 1931, he was employed by the Acme-Evans Milling Company, and was working on the fourth floor of their mill and was engaged in operating flour grinders for said company and had been so engaged for a long period of time; that the defendant herein furnished electric energy to said company which operated said grinding machines and had erected and maintained a transmission line running direct from said power plant to the floor of the building on which this plaintiff was working. That there was located in said building on the floor where this plaintiff was working, an electric board which controlled the power furnished by said defendant company, to be used in operating said flour grinding machines; that said defendant company furnished to the employer of this plaintiff electrical energy at a voltage of about 2300 to 2500 volts; that said voltage was brought direct to said electric board; that said defendant knew the construction of said electric board and the voltage that was ordered and permitted over said transmission line.

That the defendant had the exclusive charge and control of the primary system which included all of the electric machinery, generators and appliances generating electric energy also the transmission line carrying said electric energy to the electric board in the plant of Acme-Evans Milling Company as above set out.

“Plaintiff further says that on the above named date he was performing his work for said milling company and was standing about 2 feet from the east side of said electric board to which the transmission line as above described, owned, controlled and operated by the defendant herein, was attached. That at that time the usual voltage of 2300 to 2500 volts was being sent over said line into said electric board; that at that time said electric board and all its connecting parts, motors and motor circuits connected to this board were in proper repair and free from grounds; that then and there and at that time the defendant company herein, without warning carelessly and negligently allowed and permitted a voltage in excess of that for which the board was insulated and in excess of the voltage normally transmitted over said line, to be suddenly transmitted over said transmission line as above set out, which excessive voltage came directly from said defendant's power plant and equipment to the building and to the electric board near which this plaintiff was standing; and because of said sudden high and excessive voltage, a flashover was caused at the points where the terminals of said transmission line were connected to said electric board and flashes of fire were caused to be sent from said connecting points and an electrical explosion occurred.

“Plaintiff further says that said defendant unlawfully, carelessly and negligently erected and maintained said transmission line and had and was on the above named date transmitting electric energy over said transmission line not having then and there and at that time, lightning arresters or any other safety device to thereby prevent any excessive voltage from being transmitted over said transmission line to the point where the terminals of said line connected with the electric board located on the fourth floor of the building of the AcmeEvans Company as above set out; that by reason of and as a direct result of the unlawful, negligent and careless acts and omissions of the defendant in failing to install and maintain on said transmission line said lightning arresters or some safety device, and to use every other device, care and precaution to prevent excessive voltage being transmitted over said line, excessive

[5 N.E.2d 120]

voltage was then and there and at that time transmitted as herein above alleged.

“That by reason of one or more of the careless and negligent acts as above set out, the flash over and electrical explosion was caused as herein alleged and the plaintiff was seriously burned and injured in this, towit: * * *

“* * * That said injuries, as above described, were directly and immediately caused by the careless and negligent acts of said defendant, in allowing and permitting said excessive voltage of electricity to be sent over said transmission line to said electric board; and as a direct and immediate result of the unlawful, careless and negligent act of said defendant in failing and omitting to install and maintain lightning arresters or some other safety device to prevent said...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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