Mayhew v. Yakima Power Co.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1913 |
| Citation | 72 Wash. 431,130 P. 485 |
| Parties | MAYHEW v. YAKIMA POWER CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; E. B. Preble Judge.
Action by Cloyd Mayhew against the Yakima Power Company. From a directed verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. M Dunn, of Sunnyside, and Frank A. Luse, of North Yakima, for appellant.
Danson Williams & Danson and Geo. D. Lantz, all of Spokane, and Luhman & Clark, of North Yakima, for respondent.
Defendant is the owner of a high power transmission line in the Yakima valley. It runs parallel with and along the edge of the right of way of the public roads. The posts are set the usual distance apart, and the power line is run on cross-arms which are about 40 feet above the ground. The voltage was very heavy, and there is evidence to sustain a finding that insulation would have been impractical, if not impossible. Plaintiff, a boy of 16 years but well grown and strong, was employed as one of a hay stacking crew. Hay is usually stacked in the Yakima valley by means of a derrick. The one to which we shall refer was rigged in the following manner Large timbers were set on the ground, and upon these a stack pole 45 feet high was reared.
On the top of the stack pole there was an arm 18 feet long. The whole superstructure was so arranged that it would swing or revolve freely. From the end of the arm a long cable was extended through a block and tackle. When this was pulled down it formed a loop which would reach to the ground. The ground timbers of the derrick were cut to serve the purpose of sled runners, and the structure was moved by hitching horses to it and dragging it from place to place. At the time of the injury complained of, the derrick was being hauled along the road, and plaintiff was riding in the loop of the cable, which hung so low that it came within a short distance of the ground. The ground was sufficiently rough and uneven to jar the structure, and the mast swung around so that the wire cable came in contact with the power line, at a time when plaintiff had his foot on the ground. A circuit was thus formed, and plaintiff was severely shocked and burned. An action was brought to recover damages, and from a directed verdict plaintiff has appealed.
Negligence is alleged, in this, that, respondent having placed a dangerous force on the highway, it was its duty to make the highway as safe for those who had a right to travel on it as it was before. He also invokes the rule that, where people have a right to go either for business or pleasure, it is the duty of those who handle dangerous agencies to insulate or protect them so as to insure the safety of those who might come in contact with them. But it seems to us, as it did to the trial judge, that there was no negligence on the part of respondent. 'Negligence' is an omission of duty imposed by statute or implied by law. Negligence is not presumed, but is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bunten v. Eastern Minnesota Power Co.
...have been sustained if the wires had been higher. Fairbairn v. American River Electric Co., 170 Cal. 115, 148 P. 788; Mayhew v. Yakima Power Co., 72 Wash. 431, 130 P. 485; Mirnek v. West Penn Power Co., 279 Pa. 188, 123 A. 769; Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Searcy, 167 Ky. 840, 181 S. W. 662; B......
-
Salt River Valley Water Users' Association v. Compton
... ... through receiving an electric shock from certain high-power ... transmission lines belonging to defendant. A general demurrer ... to the original complaint ... Fairbairn v ... American River Elec. Co., 170 Cal. 115, 148 P. 788; ... Mayhew v. Yakima Power Co., 72 Wash. 431, ... 130 P. 485. Particularly is this true when, in order to ... ...
-
Vannoy v. Pacific Power & Light Co.
...14. See the following: Graves v. Washington Water Power Co., 44 Wash. 675, 87 P. 956, 11 L.R.A.,N.S., 452 (1906); Mayhew v. Yakima Power Co., 72 Wash. 431, 130 P. 485 (1913); Card v. Wenatchee Valley Gas & Electric Co., 77 Wash. 564, 137 P. 1047 (1914). The foregoing cases were all decided ......
-
Richardson v. U.S.
...Power Co., 93 Wash. 291, 160 P. 954 (1916); White v. Reservation Electric Co., 75 Wash. 139, 134 P. 807 (1913); Mayhew v. Yakima Power Co., 72 Wash. 431, 130 P. 485 (1913). It is appellant's position that the proper standard of care imposed upon the BPA was "the highest degree of care that ......