Limbeck v. Interstate Power Co., 9473.

• Decision Date: 20 February 1934
• Docket Number: No. 9473.,9473.
• Citation: 69 F.2d 249
• Parties: LIMBECK v. INTERSTATE POWER CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

69 F.2d 249 (1934)

LIMBECK v. INTERSTATE POWER CO.

No. 9473.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 20, 1934.

L. F. Tierney, of Dubuque, Iowa (H. C. Kenline, R. P. Roedell, H. J. Hoffmann, and Kenline, Roedell, Hoffmann & Tierney, all of Dubuque, Iowa, on the brief), for appellant.

W. A. Smith, of Dubuque, Iowa (F. A. O'Connor and Smith & O'Connor, all of Dubuque, Iowa, on the brief), for appellee.

Before STONE, VAN VALKENBURGH, and BOOTH, Circuit Judges.

STONE, Circuit Judge.

This is an action for damages on account of burning a large barn claimed to have been caused by negligence of the power company in operating and maintaining transmission lines and equipment furnishing electric current to plaintiff's premises, including this barn. From a judgment entered on verdict directed for defendant at the close of all of the testimony, plaintiff brings this appeal. The points presented here have to do with the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury and with rulings on evidence.

I.

Sufficiency of Evidence.

While there was decided conflict in the evidence on most of the vital points in the case, we are required to test the sufficiency of the evidence from the standpoint solely of the testimony most favorable to the plaintiff. So considered, the following appears: Plaintiff had a farm plant consisting of residence, the barn burned, a bull barn, and a pump house. The barn was a large, valuable structure with extensive facilities for cattle, a large loft room and an incubator room. West of the barn a short distance was a smaller structure known as the bull barn and north of that was a pump house containing an air compressor operated by an electric motor. All of these buildings were on the south side of a public highway. On the northern side of the highway the company maintained a high tension line. This consisted of two distinct circuits. The circuit near the top of the wires consisted of three wires carrying 33,000 volts. About four feet below and on the same poles were the three wires of another circuit carrying 2,300 volts. For the purpose of furnishing current from the lower of the above transmission lines to plaintiff's buildings, defendant installed transformers and erected service lines running onto plaintiff's property. The lighting systems in the barns were wired for 110 volts while the electric motor operating the compressor pump in the pump house required 220 volts. To meet this difference in voltage defendant installed two transformers on one of its poles, the one on the south to reduce the 2,300 volts of the transmission line to 110 volts for the barns, and the one on the north to reduce the voltage to 220 volts for the motor. From the south transformer, wires passed to the large barn (which was burned) where they connected with the light wiring system of that barn near the north gable of the roof well up under the eaves. From the light system wiring of this barn, two wires passed through a west dormer window to the bull barn where they were connected with the light system wiring therein. From the north transformer, wires led direct to the pump house for operation of the motor. As this motor was three phase, one of the leads of the north transformer was connected to one of the secondary lines of the south transformer and the other secondary line of the south transformer led to the pump motor. In the bull barn there were fuses which would blow out if excessive current should come to them. The wires in both barns were covered with approved insulation made up of rubber and other materials.

The day of the occurrence was rainy and stormy. There were no lights being used at the time in the bull barn and, apparently, the pump was not being operated. Two employees of the plaintiff were working in the barn with the lights on until about noon. They left for dinner at that time leaving no lights on and everything, apparently, all right. An incubator in the barn was not in operation and had not been for more than a day. At that time there were neither fire, lights, nor use of current of any kind in either of the barns. About thirty minutes later a school boy coming along the highway saw the barn was on fire and at once informed the employees, who were in the house a few hundred yards away. When these employees ran out, they observed small flames and smoke coming from both ends of the barn up near the peak of the gable, both where the power wires entered the barn and at the opposite end. They rushed into the barn to save the cattle which were there and noticed a volume of black smoke smelling like tar or rubber. One of them went up to the loft and saw fire underneath the roof along the electric wires attached to the roof rafters. All the employees were able to do was to save the cattle and the barn burned. After the fire, it was discovered that the fuses in the fuse box at the bull barn were not only blown out but that the brass heads and mica tops had been blown off and it was necessary to use pliers to get the fuses out. After the fire, the pump motor would not work and, thinking that it might be burned out, it was sent for inspection and repair to an employee of the defendant who found that it was not damaged. It was again installed but would not work. Also, the lights in the bull barn would not work although other wires had been stretched direct from the south transformer to that barn after the fire. After the company had installed a new north transformer, both the pump motor and the bull barn lights operated.

The transformer which was replaced was found to be defective. A transformer is a piece of electric equipment whose function is to increase or reduce voltage — in this case to reduce voltage. It is composed of a metal...