Mayer v. Cent. Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 13 October 1927
• Docket Number: Nos. 5306,5307.,s. 5306
• Citation: 215 N.W. 287,55 N.D. 805
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Parties: MAYER v. CENTRAL LIGHT & POWER CO. (two cases).

55 N.D. 805

215 N.W. 287

MAYER

v.CENTRAL LIGHT & POWER CO. (two cases).

Nos. 5306, 5307.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

July 9, 1927.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1927.

Syllabus by the Court.

In two actions, one for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, an infant, caused by coming in contact with a current of electricity of high voltage as he walked along the highway adjacent to an inclosure erected about some transformers, and the other to recover consequential damages for his care while injured, the evidence is examined, and held sufficient to support the verdicts for the plaintiffs in each of the cases.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

The distribution of electrical current of high voltage places on those responsible for its handling duty of exercising care to safeguard it.

Where transformers or wires carrying high voltage electrical current are so placed that persons are likely to come in contact therewith, duty of safeguarding requires greater precaution against injury than would be required if instrumentalities were located at more isolated point.

Appeal from District Court, Sheridan County; J. A. Coffey, Judge.

Separate actions by Jack Mayer, by Elizabeth Mayer, his guardian ad litem, and by Elizabeth Mayer, against the Central Light & Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff in each case, defendant appeals. Judgments affirmed.Conmy, Young & Burnett and J. F. X. Conmy, all of Fargo, for appellant.

Harry E. Dickinson, of McClusky, for respondents.

BIRDZELL, C. J.

Two actions, one to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of the negligence of the defendant, and the other by the natural guardian to recover the expenses incurred in treating the injured party, were tried together, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff in each case. The defendant appeals from the judgments entered on the verdicts, and the appeals are submitted together on the same record. The complaint in the personal injury action alleges that, at the northeast corner of the city of McClusky and in close proximity to a public road, the defendant maintained two primary electrical transformers by which the voltage of the electrical current carried by its power line was reduced from 28,000 to about 2,300 volts; that the transformers rested on cement blocks about 12 inches high, and were inclosed with a wooden fence; that the ground wire of the transformers entered the ground near the south side of the fence, and that the south side of the fence was about 15 feet from the public road; that, as a result of considerable rainfall in the vicinity of McClusky, the fence and ground surrounding the transformers and the insulation on the wire and other parts had become damp and wet; that the defendant so negligently and carelessly operated the transformers that large quantities of electricity escaped therefrom, and the fence, the ground wire, and other surroundings became heavily charged with electricity; that while the plaintiff, a minor of the age of 10 years, and a boy companion were walking along the side of the public road and passing the transformers, the plaintiff's hand accidently came in contact with the fence surrounding the transformers; that he immediately received a severe electrical shock which threw him to the ground and severely burned his hand and his feet; that the injuries were occasioned through the negligence of the defendant in maintaining the transformers so close to a public road that persons passing thereon would come in contact...