Lapsley v. United Elec. Co. of N.J.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1909
• Citation: 74 A. 283,79 N.J.L. 131
• Parties: LAPSLEY v. UNITED ELECTRIC CO. OF NEW JERSEY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

74 A. 283

79 N.J.L. 131

LAPSLEY

v. UNITED ELECTRIC CO. OF NEW JERSEY et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 8, 1909.

Action by Catharine Lapsley, administratrix, against the United Electric Company of New Jersey and others. Verdict for plaintiff. Rule to show cause made absolute.

See, also, 75 N. J. Law, 266, 68 Atl. 1113.

Argued June term, 1909, before GUMMERE, C. J., and GARRISON and PARKER, JJ.

Michael J. Tansey and Patrick J. Dolan, for plaintiff. Leonard J. Tynan, for defendants.

PARKER, J. The plaintiff's intestate was killed while in the employ of the United Electric Company of New Jersey, by coming in contact with a "stud" highly charged with electricity in the basement of a building occupied by said company as an electrical "substation" in Jersey City. Deceased was employed as an electrician's helper, and he, with others, including his foreman, had been sent into the basement to board over a hole communicating with the floor above. He was on his way out for another piece of board, when he was killed. This action was brought by his widow as administratrix for the benefit of the next of kin, on the theory that his death was due to negligence of the three defendants, or one of them. At the trial it was substantially conceded that the United Electric Company was the only defendant that could be charged with liability, and, though no formal nonsuit or direction was awarded as to the other defendants, the case for all practical purposes proceeded as against the United Electric Company alone. On behalf of that company there was a motion to nonsuit on the grounds that no negligence of defendant was shown, and of contributory negligence of deceased, which motion was denied. There was also a motion to direct a verdict, which was also denied, and the case submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiff. The propriety of each of these rulings is challenged on this rule to show cause, and it is also claimed that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and the charge of the court. The important controversy on the facts was whether deceased was rightfully in the place where he met his death, which was not the place where the men were working. The conditions in the basement were peculiar. It was rectangular in shape, 70 feet long by 44 feet wide, and divided into a number of long compartments by masonry walls. It contained a large quantity of highly charged electrical conductors, switches, and other appliances, and these were intended to be kept under a slight air pressure, so that to reach the place of work from the floor above it was necessary to pass through two doors forming an air lock, at one end of the building. From thence to the place of work, at the farthest corner of the building, there were two routes, one along the inside of the outer foundation walls, a course which while lighted adequately was full of dangerous appliances, and among them the fatal stud; the other an inner and shorter course...