McAdam v. Cent. Ry. & Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 March 1896
• Citation: 35 A. 341,67 Conn. 445
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: McADAM v. CENTRAL RAILWAY & ELECTRIC CO.

35 A. 341

67 Conn. 445

McADAM

v. CENTRAL RAILWAY & ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 26, 1896.

Appeal from superior court, Hartford connty; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Action by Hugh A. McAdam against the Central Railway & Electric Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

Frank L. Hungerford, for appellant.

John P. Healy and Frank E. Healy, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. The defendant corporation maintained in the city of New Britain an electrical plant, with two separate branches,—one for operating an electric street railway under the overhead trolley plan, and the other for furnishing electric lights. The plaintiffi was a lineman employed in the electric light department. It was a part of his duty, when specially directed, to make some changes in the lines of the railway department He had been specially directed to ascend a pole used in connection with the railway, for the purpose of removing a telephone wire fastened to the top of the pole, and used by the defendant. Attached to this pole were span wires and support wires belonging to the railway plant. The span wires passed over the main trolley wire, and might become dangerous by contact with that wire, unless protected by artificial insulation. In the construction of the railway the wires were so arranged that occasional contact between the span wires and the trolley wire was likely to occur. The span wires were understood to be insulated from the main trolley wire by proper artificial insulation. Pursuant to his directions, the plaintiff ascended the pole by a ladder to the height of about 16 feet, with the expectation of climbing from that point to the top of the pole. Before leaving the ladder, and for the purpose of steadying himself as he was about to ascend, he took hold with his left hand of an eyebolt connected with a support wire which ran from the pole to the next pole, and reached his right hand to take hold of an eyebolt to which was fastened a span wire. The support wire in some way made a ground connection. The span wire was not Insulated, and was in contact with the trolley wire charged for use for railway purposes. As his right hand touched the eyebolt, he received a severe shock, which caused him to fall to the ground, whereby he was injured. Several days prior to the accident the defendant had its attention called to a dangerous condition of the wires at this point, and it made no effort to discover the cause. The court below found that the defendant was...