MacMullen v. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company

• Decision Date: 20 December 1961
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. AC-440.
• Citation: 205 F. Supp. 811
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: John G. MacMULLEN, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, Defendant.

205 F. Supp. 811

John G. MacMULLEN, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. AC-440.

United States District Court E. D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.

December 20, 1961.

J. P. Mozingo, III, Benny R. Greer, Archie L. Chandler, Darlington, S. C., for plaintiff.

Cooper & Gary, Gene V. Pruet, Columbia, S. C., for defendant.

TIMMERMAN, Chief Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.

The defendant, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, in June of 1958, was in the process of having constructed a new steam generating plant for the manufacture of electricity near Irmo, South Carolina, known as McMeekin Station, under the general supervision, direction and planning of Gilbert Associates, Inc., of Reading, Pennsylvania.

Gilbert Associates, Inc., consultants for the defendant, on November 27, 1956, made a purchase order contract with Fairfield Engineering Company for the furnishing and installation of continuous automatic coal handling equipment at this Station in the amount of $367,062.00. (Ex. R) This equipment made up a system whereby coal was handled and transferred in several phases from railroad cars into the generating plant. Fairfield Engineering Company, specialists in supplying and installing automatic transfer systems for various products, including coal, made a subcontract with Trans-Weigh Company, of Pennsylvania, to supply and furnish an engineer to install, adjust, calibrate and instruct defendant's personnel in the use of electronic weighing and measuring equipment that would weigh coal as it passed through the coal handling system for less than $3,000.00. (Ex. L) Trans-Weigh Company specializes in supplying, installing and calibrating electronic weighing equipment.

The plaintiff, John G. MacMullen, an employee of Trans-Weigh Company, went to the McMeekin Station on the morning of June 11, 1958, for the purpose of adjusting, calibrating and instructing company personnel in the use of the coal weighing equipment.

2.

On the morning of June 13, 1958, the plaintiff had completed his work on the weighing equipment supplied by his employer, Trans-Weigh Company, and had placed the equipment in proper operation.

Some equipment supplied by a company other than Trans-Weigh Company that was a part of the coal transfer system was defective, and the plaintiff was asked by an agent of the defendant on duty at the McMeekin Station whether he was familiar with the defective equipment, and whether he could correct the existing defects. The plaintiff informed this agent that he was familiar with the type of equipment involved and that he could correct the defects, but that this was not equipment of his company, and that he did not wish to work on equipment of another company. In view of the fact that an engineer from the other company could not be brought to the site within a short time, the plaintiff was prevailed upon to repair the defective equipment. Plaintiff consented to repair the equipment upon three conditions: (1) that the defendant agree to furnish all necessary material; (2) that the defendant furnish the necessary personnel to do certain work involved; and (3) that the defendant would de-energize and keep the flow of electric current from the equipment involved while plaintiff worked on it. These conditions were agreed to by Engineer M. C. Johnson, who was supervisor of relays and controls for the defendant at the McMeekin Station.

3.

The defective equipment consisted of a system of potentiometers and a drive motor located inside the plant building, and more particularly located inside a metal cabinet approximately 21" × 21" × 29" in size. The defendant assigned two employees, one an electrician and the other a mechanic, to work with the plaintiff in repairing and adjusting the defective equipment. Some preliminary work was done in the morning of June 13, 1958, toward preparing certain equipment and materials for installation in the cabinet. After lunch, at approximately 12:30 P.M., the plaintiff was informed that the electricity had been turned off and that the equipment to be adjusted had been de-energized. The mechanic, L. M. Shealy, installed some brackets inside the metal cabinet as instructed by the plaintiff and did work in the cabinet for a period of approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. The plaintiff then undertook to make the necessary adjustments to the equipment inside the cabinet, and had been so occupied for perhaps five minutes when suddenly he received an electric shock. The mechanic, L. M. Shealy, upon observing that plaintiff had received a shock, and that plaintiff's arms and hands were in contact with the equipment, touched the plaintiff with the back of his hand to ascertain whether any current was flowing from plaintiff, and Shealy found that he received no electric voltage by touching the plaintiff. Mr. Shealy then attempted to pull the plaintiff loose from the equipment but was unable to do so, at which time the electrician, A. C. Turkett, came to Mr. Shealy's assistance, and the two of them were able to dislodge the plaintiff from the equipment. The plaintiff was at that time drawn up and was not breathing and mucus was flowing from his mouth. The plaintiff was revived by means of artificial respiration given by Mr. Shealy, and was taken to a doctor's office in a nearby town for treatment. The plaintiff, after visiting this physician, returned to the plant site, and then went to the airport in Columbia and returned to his home in Pennsylvania by airplane.

The defendant, through its employees, had control of the switches which allowed and regulated the flow of electricity into the equipment which was being repaired. The plaintiff was not familiar with the various circuit control systems within the plant or the main control center inside the plant which controlled the flow of energy into the equipment on which he was working. There was no necessity for having electric current running through the equipment at the time plaintiff received his injury. The plaintiff had ascertained by checking certain dial indicators that the equipment was deenergized before he began his work on the equipment.

On the day that plaintiff was injured, and prior thereto, the McMeekin Station had been put in partial operation, and the coal transfer system had been operated manually by turning the necessary switches on and off, in view of the fact that the electronic equipment which operates the system automatically had not been adjusted and calibrated.

4.

I find that the defendant, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, was negligent, through its agents, servants and employees, in causing or allowing the equipment on which the plaintiff was working to be energized without notice to the plaintiff while he was in the act of making adjustments to the equipment. I find that the defendant was negligent in not taking precautionary steps to prevent the electric current from being turned on while plaintiff was working on the equipment.

5.

I find that the plaintiff requested the proper supervisory personnel of the defendant to shut off the flow of electric current into the equipment involved and to prevent the equipment from becoming re-energized until he had completed his work, and that he was assured by defendant's agent that this would be done. The plaintiff checked certain dial indicators to ascertain that the current had actually been turned off on the equipment. I find, therefore, that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in bringing about his own injury. He could not do the work and at the same time watch the switches.

6.

In view of the fact that the plaintiff took the necessary action to remove any risk that he might be injured while working on the equipment involved, I find that he did not assume the risk and hazard of working on the equipment, and would not, therefore, be precluded from recovery by any assumption of risk. There is no evidence which suggests that plaintiff had any reason to suspect that electric current would be on the equipment with which he was to work.

7.

I find that plaintiff was not engaged in performing a part of the trade, business or occupation of the defendant; that the plaintiff was not a statutory...