Lancaster's Adm'x v. Central City Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1910
• Citation: 125 S.W. 739
• Parties: LANCASTER'S ADM'X v. CENTRAL CITY LIGHT & POWER CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

125 S.W. 739

LANCASTER'S ADM'X v. CENTRAL CITY LIGHT & POWER CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 2, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Muhlenberg County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Charles M. Lancaster's administratrix against the Central City Light & Power Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

B. F Proctor, G. H. Herdman, L. C. Jones, and Greene, Van Winkle &amp Schoolfield, for appellant.

R. Y Thomas, Jr., for appellee.

CARROLL J.

Charles Lancaster, at the time of his death, which was caused by an electric shock, was electrician and in sole charge of the Central City Light & Power Company's plant. He had been working in this capacity for about six weeks before his death, and had previously had several years' experience with other but smaller electric plants. It may therefore be said that he was experienced, and fully acquainted with the dangers and risks of his employment. In connection with the plant, there was what is called a "switch board." The street or arc lights were turned off by pulling two plugs out of the switch board, which connected in the back end thereof in such a manner as either to turn on or off the electricity. These plugs were about ten inches in length, and ran into sockets in the switch board, and each of them had a rubber handle about five inches long and perfectly insulated. When it was desired to turn the lights on, these plugs were pushed into the sockets; and, when it was desired to put the light out, the plugs were pulled out. The evidence very clearly established that the proper way in which to turn the lights off was to pull out one of these plugs at a time, and that if this method was observed there was no danger. The evidence also established that even if both of them were pulled out at the same time, as they might be by taking hold of the insulated handle of each, there would be no danger, unless some part of the hand came in contact with the plugs before they were entirely pulled out, and beyond the point at which they were insulated. It is also clearly shown that Lancaster knew that the proper method of cutting off the lights was to pull one of these plugs out at a time, and that he also knew that it was dangerous to attempt to pull both of them out at the same time. And, being the electrician in charge, he knew that if his hand or fingers touched the uninsulated part of these plugs before they were pulled out that death would surely result. It may also be said that there is no serious contradiction in the evidence that the method of pulling these plugs out was very simple and entirely safe if the slightest care was exercised by the operator to prevent his fingers or hands coming in contact with the uninsulated part of the plug, which it was not necessary in any state of case to touch in order to pull the plugs out. It appears that Lancaster, in attempting to shut off the lights, pulled both of these plugs out at the same time, and in some manner permitted one finger on each hand to come in contact with the uninsulated plugs. The result was instant death. To recover damages for the loss of his life, this action was instituted by his administrator. Upon a trial before a jury, a verdict was returned in favor of the electric light company, and this appeal is prosecuted by the administrator.

Two grounds of negligence are alleged, but one of them has been abandoned, as the evidence did not justify the charge. The negligence here insisted on is that the switch board was defectively constructed and defectively and dangerously wired. Upon this point W. H. Isbell, a practical electrician, testified that the switch board was so constructed that the plugs had to be entirely withdrawn before the electric current was shut off or disconnected, when it should have been so constructed as that if the plugs were moved three-fourths of an inch it would disconnect the current. This witness also said that the handles on these plugs were perfectly insulated, and that the only way a person in pulling them out could come in contact with the electricity was by putting the fingers of his hands over the handle on the metal. Other electricians testified that the switch board, and the arrangement of the plugs, was constructed on the most approved plan.

Passing for the moment, the question of a peremptory instruction, that it is insisted by counsel for the appellee should have been given, we will examine the instruction complained of. The court, in substance, instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant company negligently furnished its plant with a switch board which was...