Luehrmann v. Laclede Gaslight Co.

• Citation: 127 Mo. App. 213,104 S.W. 1128
• Parties: LUEHRMANN v. LACLEDE GASLIGHT CO.
• Decision Date: 22 October 1907
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

104 S.W. 1128

127 Mo. A. 213

LUEHRMANN v. LACLEDE GASLIGHT CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

October 22, 1907.

Rehearing Denied November 5, 1907.

1. APPEAL — REVIEW — CONSTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE.

On appeal in an action for negligence, in which plaintiff was nonsuited, in determining whether plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, the most favorable construction that his evidence will permit must be given, and every reasonable inference deducible therefrom drawn.

2. ELECTRICITY — ELECTRIC COMPANIES — UNINSULATED WIRES.

Notice of the unsafe condition of an uninsulated electric light wire may be imputed to the light company from the fact that it has been in that condition for a considerable length of time, since thorough insulation is indispensable to confine the current to the wire, and the company's duty to keep its wires insulated is a continuing one, requiring careful and continuous inspection.

3. SAME — NEGLIGENCE — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

Evidence in an action for injuries caused by a wire coming in contact with a partly uninsulated electric light wire held sufficient to show that the light company was negligent in maintaining an unsafe wire.

4. SAME — PROXIMATE CAUSE.

An electric light company is not liable for injuries through electric shock caused by plaintiff driving into wires, which trespassing boys had thrown over a light wire, and which had just come into contact with the current where the insulation was off the light wire for about an inch.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moses N. Sale, Judge.

Action by George W. Luehrmann against the Laclede Gaslight Company for damage caused by electric shock. From a judgment overruling plaintiff's motion to set aside a nonsuit, he appeals. Affirmed.

W. L. Bohnenkamp, for appellant. Percy Werner and R. A. Crabbs, for respondent.

BLAND, P. J.

The Hugo Dry Goods Company has a three-story building on the north-west corner of Twenty-Third street and Cass avenue, in the city of St. Louis. The building fronts on Cass avenue, and runs back north on Twenty-Third street to an alley. The first floor of the building is occupied by the company as a store. The second and third floors are used for residence purposes, and are constructed to front on Twenty-Third street. A wooden porch 45 feet long runs along the east side of the building for the benefit of tenants occupying the second and third floors. In the backyard of the premises are coal sheds 10 to 14 feet high. Defendant maintains a line of electric wires strung on poles about 25 feet high in the alley running on the north side of the premises. The poles are much higher than the coal sheds. For the purpose of furnishing the Hugo Dry Goods Company electric light, defendant strung a wire from one of its poles in the alley, over the coal sheds to a corner of the porch, thence along the porch, and down to the first floor. This wire inclined downward from the pole to the porch, but was from 5 to 6 feet above the top of the sheds. For some time prior to May 4, 1905, about an inch of the covering or insulation of the wire near where it was fastened to the corner of the porch had been off, leaving the wire exposed. From what cause or by what means the insulation was removed the evidence does not show. On said date two boys were seen on top of the coal sheds playing with a baled hay wire, the end of which had been bent and thrown over the electric wire. Some of the witnesses say the boys were trying to get it off the electric wire. In manipulating the wire it was caused to slide toward the porch. When it was near the porch, the boys went to a nearby stable, and got a bunch of tangled baled hay wire, and in some manner connected it with the down wire, and pushed it along the electric wire until it reached the spot where the insulation was off. At this juncture the bunch of wires were in a pool of water that had collected in the alley from a recent rain, and the wires began to sputter and emit sparks of electricity, whereupon the boys ran away. In a few minutes thereafter plaintiff drove a milk wagon into the alley to make a delivery of milk. He did not observe the wires, and his horse stepped into them, and instantly fell to the ground, and was electrocuted in a few minutes. When the horse fell, plaintiff leaned over the side of his wagon to see what caused him to fall, and was thrown from the wagon by the force of an electric current into the alley, where he received several other electric shocks from coming in contact with the horse's feet as he kicked in his death struggles. Plaintiff was picked up, and helped to a drug store. The action is to recover damages caused by the electric shocks. The negligence alleged is that defendant maintains its wires in a careless and negligent condition, and negligently failed to properly insulate them and negligently failed to keep them insulated prior to and on the day of the accident (May 4, 1905). At the close of plaintiff's case, the court gave an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to his evidence, whereupon plaintiff took a nonsuit, with leave to move to set the same aside. The motion to set aside the nonsuit was overruled, and he appealed to this court.

The question presented for review is whether or no plaintiff made out a prima facie case. In the consideration of this question, the most favorable construction that it will admit of must be given to plaintiff's evidence, and every reasonable inference...