MaCdonald v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1911
• Citation: 94 N.E. 259,208 Mass. 199
• Parties: MacDONALD v. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

208 Mass. 199

94 N.E. 259

MacDONALD v. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

March 1, 1911

COUNSEL

James J. McCarthy and Wm. J. O'Donnell, for plaintiff.

Henry F. Hurlburt and Henry F. Hurlburt, Jr., for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

This is an action of tort to recover for the death of the plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence at Canton, July 16, 1906. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant and reported the case with the stipulation, agreed to by the parties, that if the ruling was wrong judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for $2,500, otherwise for the defendant. Certain evidence was introduced at the trial subject to the defendant's exceptions, and is contained in the report. In regard to that the report has the following statement by the presiding justice: 'Believing that the case should be finally decided, I have set out the said exceptions and reserve for the full court the question as to whether or not they should be considered.' We construe this as meaning that if the ruling directing a verdict for the defendant was wrong as the case stands, but would not be if that evidence was excluded, then the question of its admissibility is to be considered; otherwise not. We see no objection to this form of report, but we do not find it necessary to consider the question of the admissibility of the evidence, since we are of opinion that as the case stands the ruling directing a verdict for the defendant was right.

We assume in favor of the plaintiff that there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant in suffering the insulation upon the wire to become thin and worn. On witness testified that it was worn off so that the wire was exposed at a place where the cover of the box if swung up would strike it. But we are constrained to hold that there is no evidence which would warrant a verdict against the defendant. There was evidence tending to show that there was a burn caused by electricity between the second and third fingers of the left hand of the intestate, extending to the bone, and that the death of the intestate was caused by accidental electrocution. There was also evidence tending to show that two or three minutes before his death the deceased was seen sitting on the seat facing the box. But there is no evidence as to what occurred...