Johnson v. Alabama Power Co.
Decision Date | 28 February 1935 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 302. |
Citation | 230 Ala. 91,159 So. 695 |
Parties | JOHNSON v. ALABAMA POWER CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W. B. Merrill, Judge.
Action for damages by Vera Johnson, as administratrix of the estate of Horace K. Johnson, deceased, against the Alabama Power Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
E. L Roberts, of Gadsden, Merrill, Jones & Whiteside, of Anniston and McCord & McCord, of Gadsden, for appellant.
Knox Acker, Sterne & Liles, of Anniston, and Martin, Turner & McWhorter, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Appellant's intestate was killed by coming in contact with a broken wire charged with a current of electricity of high and dangerous voltage. The electricity was generated and supplied by the appellee to the city of Piedmont, which owned and operated a system for distributing the current, bought of appellee, to the inhabitants of the city and for lighting the city.
The court below sustained demurrers to the several counts of the complaint, and, on account of the adverse ruling, the plaintiff took nonsuit, and appeals. The sole question presented here for review arises upon the sufficiency of the several counts, or of either of them, to state a cause of action against the defendant, the generator or seller of the electricity to the city. Confessedly, under the averments of the pleading, the defendant had no ownership in, control or management of, the equipment or facilities used or employed for the distribution of the electricity after it left the defendant's substation and entered the distribution system of the city.
The death of plaintiff's intestate is ascribed to the defective condition of one of the city's conduit wires.
The plaintiff's intestate, a city letter carrier, while engaged in his duties as such letter carrier, and while traveling along or across Second avenue of the city of Piedmont, came into contact with a live wire, which, on account of its defective condition had broken, and fallen "along side or across" said avenue.
This court has had occasion to consider the liability of the generator of electricity, which it sells and supplies to others, for distribution over wires of the purchasers, and over which wires the generating company has no control or supervision.
In the case of Alabama Power Co. v. Jones, 212 Ala. 206, 101 So. 898, 900, this court cited with approval the following statement of the law from the case of Hoffman v. Leavenworth Light, Heat & Power Co., 91 Kan. 450, 138 P. 632, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 574:
In 20 Corpus Juris, page 365, it is stated as a general principle of law in such case: "Whatever the rule may be in this regard, knowledge of the defective and dangerous condition of a customer's appliances will charge even a mere guarantor and supplier of electricity with liability for consequences, where current is thereafter supplied to such defective and dangerous appliances."
The rule declared in the Hoffman Case, supra, has received the approval of this court, and is now the law on the subject in this jurisdiction.
In order, therefore, to make the generator of the electricity liable it must be averred, and proved, that it continued to furnish the dangerous current after knowledge that the purchaser had permitted the electrical equipment to become defective, and therefore dangerous to life and property. Whenever such condition exists, and the seller has notice or knowledge of it, it becomes his duty to cut off service from the purchaser. We so held in the case of Alabama Power Co. v. Sides, 155 So. 686.
It is alleged in count one of the complaint, omitting averments not presently necessary to be stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Decatur v. Parham, 8 Div. 910
...Alabama Power Co. v. Jones, 212 Ala. 206, 101 So. 898; Alabama Power Co. v. Emens, 228 Ala. 466, 153 So. 729; Johnson v. Alabama Power Co., 230 Ala. 91, 159 So. 695; Milligan v. Georgia Power Co., 68 Ga.App. 269, 22 S.E.2d 662; Lawson v. City of Chattanooga, 37 Tenn. App. 309, 263 S.W.2d 53......
-
City of Dothan v. Hardy
... ... the negligence of appellant in operating a public utility, an ... electric light and power plant. This is the second appeal ... For former decision, see Hardy v. City of Dothan, ... 234 ... to prevail "elsewhere generally except in Alabama." ... The ... Alabama Rule dates back to Stoudenmeier v ... Williamson, 29 Ala. 558, ... Curtis, Law of Electricity, §§ 510, ... 515, 525, 573; 20 R.C.L. p. 111, § 97; Johnson v. Alabama ... Power Co., 230 Ala. 91, 159 So. 695; Hardy v. City of ... Dothan, supra; Byars et ... ...
-
Windsor Hotel Co. v. Central Maine Power Co.
...Citing leading cases to which are added Snook v. City of Winfield, 144 Kan. 375, 61 P.2d 101, (2, 3) 104 (1936), Johnson v. Alabama Power Co., 230 Ala. 91, 159 So. 695, (1) 696 (1935) and Smith's Adm'x, '(W)here such public utility knows of the defective condition, 'its duty is to stop and ......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Henson
... ... under the legal duty to discontinue service. It is insisted ... defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge with ... hypothesis in view of clear and undisputed evidence on that ... issue. Alabama Power Co. v. Sides, 229 Ala. 84, 155 ... So. 686; Johnson v. Alabama Power Co., 230 Ala. 91, ... 159 So. 695; Alabama Power Co. v. Jones, 212 Ala ... 206, 101 So. 898 ... The ... evidence of Mr. Gladden and Mr. L'Heureux, the district ... superintendent at ... [191 So. 382.] ... Jasper, expert witnesses for defendant, tended to show ... ...